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.
Is it possible Newt needs to stay in legally, so he can blow his remaining campaing funds on negative ads attacking Romney? If he publically drops out, he becomes like an advocacy organization, and might then see the FEC start sniffing around to see if he meets their various requirements.
To me, his campaign’s statement sounds like he wants his voters to do whatever they can to stop Romney from reaching 1140 (by voting for Santorum in the winner take alls), while he keeps a toe in the water so he can legally keep running anti-Romney advertisements, dragging him down.
I’m thinking Newt wants to win, and wants to hurt Romney. The best way to do both is to drop out and let Santorum take enough delegates to send it to the floor. But he isn’t doing that, making me think he may be looking at some legal requirement to be running an active campaign in order to run ads against Romney.
Newt’s a genius level IQ at this. Either he’s helping the establishment crown Romney (highly unlikely) or he has some devious plan which he thinks will work better to trigger a convention battle than simply dropping out. I hope he’s right, whatever his plan.