Posted on 03/14/2012 8:40:27 AM PDT by Iron Munro
Despite his losses in the Alabama and Mississippi primaries, Mitt Romney appears to have expanded his delegate lead on Tuesday.
The most recent projections from AP show Rick Santorum took 31 delegates from Alabama and Mississippi, while Newt Gingrich took 24 delegates and Romney got 23
But this morning, Romney was projected to win all nine delegates from American Samoa’s caucuses, and he also won the Hawaii caucuses by a large margin.
AP projections show Romney beat Santorum 18 delegates to four in those jurisdictions.
So, as of this morning, Romney has won 41 delegates from Tuesday’s contests, compared to 35 for Santorum, thereby expanding Romney’s delegate lead. (Gingrich is projected to have won 24 delegates.)
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
He can game the system, spend money trashing his opponents, buy all the endorsements his deep-pocketed LDS backers can buy...and he still won't be likable.
There is something creepy about him and he can't hide it behind the delegate count.
His statments on what he was and what he now is are out there for everyone to read. it was all about politics and veiled statements to get elected and govern in a state that was 85% lib and wanted it that way.
_______________________________________________
In other words you readily admit Willard Mitt Romney is a liar
and yet you are prepared to trust him...
Tell me Jeff why didnt you vote for Newt ???
Was Newt ever a possibility with you ???
If Newt is the nominee will you vote for him ???
I have stated many times, on FR and on my own stie that I would vote for any of the GOP candidates over Obama, all the way to Ron Paul.
I had a hard time choosing between Newt and Santorum after Cain dropped out and decided that Santorum was closer to my own values overall. Both take similar positions on the issues.
I believe Newt by far the best at articulating the positions. My problem with Newt is two fold...One, he wrote a glowing introduction to a 3rd wave political book by Alvin Topfler back in the late eighties or early nineties, who is on record as feeling that the Constitution is outdated. He then made that book required reading for incoming freshmen congressmen. No one has asked him about that association ( and I have emailed it to everyone I can, Hannity, Rush, Beck, Savage, several other hosts, my own reps, etc.)and to my knowledge he has never repudiated it. That was years ago....buit I am uneasy about it to this day.
Second, Newt tends to let his anger get the best of him when he is set off. It’s hurt him in this campaign and he needs to be in better control of it. He’s better than he used to be...but it is a concern.
Having said that, I would vote for Newt in an instant over Obama, and he would be my choice after Santorum. Newt has actually balanced the Federal budget at the highest levls of Government and the Contract with America was brilliant. He engineered a republican come back against Clinton and it worked so well that he was ablt to drag Clinton along with it...for which that bugger now takes credit.
So, I hope that answers your question about Newt.
Like I said, I hope Romney is not the nominee over the others...but if He is, and that’s who the people of the GOP choose, I will support him against Obama because Obama is an order of magnitude worse. Mitt is saying the right things now and with the right Congress we will be able to hold him to it IMHO. Others have every right to choose as they see fit...but I will do all I can with whatever tool we have to effectively and realistically defeat Obama.
America at the Crossroads
http://www.jeffhead.com/crossroads.htm
That paper/article explains how I feel.
decided that Santorum was closer to my own values overall. Both take similar positions on the issues.
___________________________________________
So which is it ???
This si being debated on a lot of threads, so I pinged people from them here.
People need to look closely at what Newt said, and follow his directions - especially his supporters, who seem to be unaware of what exactly he was saying. Newt is trying to send a message to his people without falling afoul of campaign finance laws, so he can’t say what he is doing outright.
I think Newt was trying to say his plan now is to use all of his money to hammer Romney relentlessly, while not actively seeking support himself. If he does this successfully, and his voters support Santorum in Winner-take-all states, he might still help Santorum beat Romney in those states enough to trigger a brokered convention.
Quite a few later states tend towards winner take all delegates. So if Romney gets 37% in one, but everybody else gets less, Romney might as well have won with 100% - he gets all the delegates. Romney could get 45% in all of those states, and still walk away as if he had gotten 100% in that state - well above the 46% average of delegates he needs to avoid a brokered convention. That is what Newt is trying to stop – if his supporters can get on board with his plan.
That is why Newt could help Romney here though, if his supporters don’t get his message. If it’s 37% Romney and 36% Santorum in a winner take all state or district, Newt’s voters could do damage by voting for Newt (even damage to Newt’s chances of winning at a brokered convention). Fracturing the anti-Romney vote only hurts Newt’s chances at a brokered convention.
Newt cannot win this outright, in any form and he knows it. Santorum cannot win this outright either at this point, and is just hanging in with hopes of the unforseen. The only question is will there be a brokered convention, or will we just have Romney stuffed down our throats. The only chance of a brokered convention is for Rick to take the Winner-take-all states and districts he can in large numbers, and deny them to Romney. If Newt can deny Romney in other winner take all votes, then that is good too, and Santorum voters need to switch sides and make that happen. Ideally we could get the Ron Paul types on board as well, but that’s probably not going to happen.
This is why Newt was emphasizing in his statement that all he wants to do is keep Romney below 1100 delegates, and why he was saying it was his only goal now. He wasn’t saying he want’s more delegates, or more votes. That is a coded message to his supporters to do what they have to to keep Romney below 1100. That means, in a winner-take-all vote, if Santorum is ahead, or well above Newt, he needs Newt’s voters to jump in and push him over the top. In truth, that is probably the only way Newt has a shadow’s chance at this point in the process. Even more ironic, Santorum is probably not likely at all, as I can’t see him taking a brokered convention, where anyone could be the candidate, and that is likely his only chance.
Newt could also use more money, to keep his operation alive, as it is the only hope at this point to avoid spending the general watching the media run one bizarre clip after another of Romney squashing bugs and laughing, or otherwise embarrassing himself. Dan Quale is a smart, funny, witty guy, yet the media made him look really silly at times. Romney will make the media’s portrayal of Quale look like Einstein crossed with Patton. I’m pretty sure they are drooling at the prospect.
The big problem is, campaign laws won’t let Newt say, “Everyone vote for Rick in the winner take all contests, while I continue to hammer Romney.” He can only use his money to advance himself and his candidacy. If he becomes a Rick supporter, his money will be looked at as something other than a simple campaign fund for Newt for President.
Newt’s supporters need to see his strategy, and come to the conclusion themselves that in some states, voting for Rick is actually their best move for their candidate. Likewise it would help if Rick supporters would vote for Newt, if it looks like Newt can deny Romney some delegates elsewhere. We just need a brokered convention.
At this point, we all need to accept that our candidates are toast when it comes to an outright win and our only other chance, a brokered convention, is rapidly evaporating as an option. Our only hope is to unite together, right now, organize, and take Mitt down through superior tactical maneuvering through the nomination process - together as a team.
I could be wrong, but I think this is what Newt is trying to say, and it makes sense, from a strategic standpoint.
Be funny if a primary brought us together for a change.
NO, that is not Newt’s message. He still wants to win and gather as many delegates as he can for leverage in a possible brokered convention. Vote for Newt, and pray he wins. He is my obi-wan-konbi. Our only hope.
Are you for real?
LOL
Pull the other one.
These are the remaining winner-take-alls:
| Missouri | 52 | March 17 |
| The District of Columbia | 19 | April 3 |
| Connecticut | 28 | April 24 |
| Delaware | 17 | April 24 |
| New York | 95 | April 24 |
| Montana | 26 | June 5 |
| New Jersey | 50 | June 5 |
| Utah | 40 | June 26 |
Some are write-offs, but others could be close.
Your numbers are correct: I wish I agreed entirely with your analysis, and I stress I very much hope you’re right in it!
My perception is a little more negative, however: California is key, and it’s (a) the biggest state in terms of delegate numbers (b) winner-take-all and (c) strongly favorable to Romney, as things stand.
If he DOES win California’s 172 delegates, he needs only 39% of the remaining delegates from all other outstanding contests, to take the nomination outright: doable, unfortunately, especially with the conservative vote as split as it is.
If, on the other hand, he DOESN’T take CA (irrespective of who else does), he then needs 55% of all other remaining delegates to take the nomination outright: which is a tall order and one he’s unlikely to meet.
The thing is, a conservative must win one of IL, NY, and CA; two out of the three would be optimal. Very important in this is at least denying Romney a majority in NY, because then it is proportional for 34 at large delegates (2 delegates for the winner of each CD). It is winner-take-all if one candidate gets 50%+1. Santorum was massively ahead in PA (46%) as of the last poll, and if he gets a majority, he should take all or almost all of the delegates given the way PA allocates it delegates (direct election by CD).
A lot of proportional states from here on out go winner-take-all if one candidate gets a certain percentage. For instance, Arkansas only allots 1 delegate to every candidate over 15%. However, the rules say that if one candidate gets a majority of the statewide vote, every other delegates goes to the winner, effectively making it a “winner-take-almost-all” in a one-on-one race. Also, some are WTA-CD and proportional statewide, like CT and KY.
NC delegate rules are ambiguous: The chairman is supposed to allocate the delegates in a way that reflects the “division of the primary vote.” If one candidate gets a large majority (say, 60%), it is easy to see the chairman interpreting the rule to mean WTA since he could argue that’s the “will of the primary voters,” especially if he backs that candidate. I could see that one going to court should it make a difference and the delegates are allocated WTA, but that might be an incentive to not do that.
I think the whole dynamic really comes down to IL next week, which is a direct election by CD and state convention for at large delegates. If Rick wins IL, and his voters faithfully vote for his delegates, he should win a lion’s share. If he can pull that off (big if, I know), the whole dynamic changes as conservatives coalesce and Romney loses in states he was expected to win big.
The advantage is undeniably Romney’s at this point, but the dynamics of the race change dramatically if conservatives rally around Santorum and start winning where the moderate is supposed to have the advantage. Conservatives make up a commanding majority of the vote in GOP primaries outside of a couple of New England states like MA, so don’t count out states like CA and IL swinging in favor of Santorum.
My source: thegreenpapers.com
It is true Romney’s strat is more effective. I wouldn’t say better, since Santorum and Gingrich’s strat is better, it just hasn’t materialized. However, I’d expect the Not-Romneys to coalesce and deny Romney delegates in most caucus states. WA will be the big player in that, since Romney has 25 delegates in some estimates from there. If the Not-Romneys unite, he can be denied all but a couple from the one or two uber-liberal Seattle area districts.
“Our goal first is to keep Romney well below 1,000,” Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond said an hour before Gingrich addressed a small crowd of disappointed supporters gathered at the Wynfrey Hotel. “It doesn’t have to be 1,000, or 1,050 — it has to be below 1,100.” If Gingrich succeeds, Hammond continued, “This will be the first time in our party in modern politics that we’re going to go to the convention floor.”
from http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2858883/posts?page=51
Newt’s message to the voters is, if we don’t keep Romney below 1100 (probably to make it beyond contestable legally), everything is over. In other words, do whatever is necessary to keep Romney below 1100. That means Newt’s spokesman is saying he supports voting strategically in winner take all votes, and not blindly supporting Gingrich. The goal is not as many votes for Gingrich as possible now, but a brokered convention. I think that is the only position any Conservative can take now.
Yes, Newt still wants to win, but if you don’t get Romney below 1140, or better 1100, it can’t happen under any circumstances. Newt will never win outright. It just won’t happen at this point. Neither can anyone else. It is Romney or a brokered convention.
For the record, I am not a Gingrich supporter, nor am I positive on Santorum. I have no horse in this race other than a support of Conservatism.. The only one I can’t stand is Romney - my goal is solely his downfall. I fully believe Santorum cannot win outright, and cannot win a brokered convention due to lack of percevied charisma/ability to win (I happen to agree with that assessment). He is done. I am unsure of Newt’s chances in a convention, and don’t care. Anyone but Romney.
IMHO we all win by creating a brokered convention, which is our only option at this point outside of Romney. Vote for Newt in any non-winner-take-all vote. That’s fine. But don’t risk letting Romney have any winner take all win, especially since whoever you vote for will likely not win outright anyway.
I think this is what Newt wants to say above but can’t say directly due to campaign finance rules. Again, if you’re not in a winner take all state, carry on as you were. But if you are, you will decide whether it is Romney, or a chance at something better.
Your analysis about the race and the delegate map is spot on. People need to realize the primary strategy shifts dramatically now. There were rules against winner-take-all allocation up to a certain date. TWO-THIRDS of the remaining delegates will now in effect be awarded that way, either at the state or district level.
The Newt supporters need to avoid being emotional about their candidate and look at the cold, hard facts. The only way Newt can win is NOT TO PLAY, because Romney will probably reach 1,144 if this 4-man-race continues and Rick and Newt split votes in the winner-take-all contests. That means no floor fight at the convention, just a coronation for Romney.
If the current polling holds in Illinois next week, Newt will be acting as Ross Perot, taking enough votes away from Santorum to hand Romney the win in "direct delegate elections" which are in essence winner-take-all by district. Romney could end up with all the Illinois delegates if that same ratio of votes occurs in every district. Note that Newt won 92% of the South Carolina delegates with 40% of the vote. Winner-take-all by district can get very close to winner-take-all by state, since it's not likely different sections of most states will vote that differently.
I'm not sure I agree with you about Newt's strategy. I definitely don't agree that it can work. The only way to stop everyone from voting for Newt is for Newt to drop out and endorse Rick. I'm not sure there are any states left where Newt is polling above Rick that would make it worthwhile for him to continue. The only instances where his presence might help is in a state like New York, where Romney could get over 50% of the vote, triggering more delegates for him, and where we therefore might need help keeping him under that total. But it looks like we have a lot more to gain in other states in a 2-man race (plus or minus 1 fruitcake, i.e. Paul).
Below are the remaining states that are winner-take-all in some form according to the list on Real Clear Politics. I haven't investigated every nuance of thresholds and exceptions for these. 850 delegates come from these, with 439 coming from the rest of the remaining states which are the proportional ones:
Illinois (direct delegate election by district)
Pennsylvania (direct delegate election by district)
West Virginia (direct delegate election by district)
California (WTA by district or a mix?)
New York (WTA by district or a mix?)
Texas (WTA by district or a mix?)
Connecticut (WTA by district or a mix?)
Maryland (WTA by district or a mix?)
Wisconsin (WTA by district or a mix?)
New Jersey (WTA by district or a mix?)
Puerto Rico (pure WTA statewide)
Washington D.C. (pure WTA statewide)
Delaware (pure WTA statewide)
Utah (pure WTA statewide)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_delegate_count.html
You’re pulling a scam but it’s so obvious, it’s amusing.
Mitt Romney’s a big government guy but we must believe he’s a regular Ross “under the hood” Perot, just buy it hook line and sinker as Mitt and the GOP-e laugh behind our backs.
But the joke is on them. We aren’t buying it or Mitt.
Newt is in this because he’s the only alternative, a conservative, to Mitt.
Important as far as WTA-CD like CA is that they are “Winner-take-almost-all.” Close races can be almost proportional (Re: Michigan), but races that are not that close go massively for the winner, with each percentage point massively increasing the delegate haul. For instance, in 2008, McCain won CA by only 7 percentage points (42-35 over Mittens), but he won 158 to Romney’s 12. So, whoever wins the state overall has a huge advantage in the delegate allocation. In a moderate-liberal state like CA, this is especially true for the moderate candidate because they will win 3 delegates in a lot of districts like Nancy Pelosi’s where there are only maybe 10,000 GOP voters (IL actually factors this in by giving bonus delegates at a CD level, which I like). Santorum will be favored in districts with a lot more GOP voters, so he has a higher hurdle to get more delegates in the CD-allocation. If Santorum loses California, he probably won’t get much more than 12-15 delegates. On the other hand, Romney might get 30 delegates if he loses from Nancy Pelosi-type districts.
The system in the GOP is basically rigged in favor of the moderate overall, even with bonus delegates. This is because a lot of Southern states are proportional. This needs to be blocked in the future. There should have been a winner-take-all “Southern Primary” (except SC) on April 3rd. Conservatives should unite at the upcoming convention and seriously amend the delegate rules. That is as important as who is ultimately nominated, IMHO.
Bingo. The Gingrich folks in Illinois REALLY need to think long and hard about how they are going to vote on the 20th. Were Romney to lose that he’d truely be shaken. The sad part is that there is no Reagan type candidate waiting in the wings. A brokered convention could end up with a Daniels/Bush ticket or something. Duncan Hunter really should have run this time. I think he would have caught fire long before Gingrich or Santorum.
And then burned out like everyone has at some point. I can’t think of a candidate besides Johnson who hasn’t caught fire at some point. Heck, even Ron Paul was the Iowa frontrunner at one point. This race has been truly been a tragic farce. I’m behind Santorum 100% at this point, but who’da thunk a fmr. Sen. who lost reelection by almost 20 points would be in serious contention for the Presidential nomination of a major party.
Actually, as far as who emerges from a truly brokered convention goes, I’d bet Huckabee. He is basically a more palatable, presidential version of Santorum. I think it will be contested, not brokered, however.
This is true. I noticed how few Southern states are winner-take-all compared to many elsewhere. But, as far as I know, this is up to every individual state. The only thing the RNC tried to do this year was make LESS states winner-take-all until a certain date. Florida and Arizona (maybe South Carolina?) violated the rules and got penalized half their delegates. But, many of the Southern states voting now or later could make their elections winner-take-all if they want. I was wondering if the "nice" states were trying to be more fair while the "mean" states were being greedier, to the disadvantage of the "nicer" candidates. The states with an eye towards cramming the candidate most in the party don't want down our throat would have more motivation to go winner-take-all. And those would tend to be liberal states where liberals win.
Not sure what you're talking about. I'm a Newt supporter and a totally anti-Mitt guy. I'm trying to make sure Mitt doesn't win the nomination and that Newt has a chance to team up with Santorum at a contested convention to beat him. Mitt will get to 1,144 delegates if Newt takes votes away in winner-take-all contests where Santorum is trailing Mitt by a small number of votes, like Illinois next week.
Well, thanks for the insightful and seemingly most coherent analysis I’ve seen here in this incoherent primary. It amazes me how much in denial the Leftists are (some are not - they know exactly what they’re doing, but many are because they have no clue what they’re doing - just following the crowd and what’s “cool” apparently). But it’s also amazing to me how many conservatives here on FR seem also to be in denial. There’s a tendency here towards, “He’s my guy so it’s a lie what they say about him” (it may be a lie, but it’s not because he’s my guy) or “He’s my guy so it’s a lie that the odds are high he’ll lose.” What follows is even worse: “And if Romney wins, I’ll never vote for him in the general election.” Maybe you’ve seen my post on this, but Romney - as bad as he is, as one of my least favorite candidates - is not even close to as bad or as threatening to our country or way of life as Obama. I’d vote for Romney in a heartbeat over Obama. I mean, I’d vote for Donald Duck over Obama.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.