My guess at a Huck-Romney-Bush map.

[Thomas D]

Bush-Blue
Romney-Red
Huckabee-Yellow

[IceSpear]

Who would win in this map?

I'd probably give AZ/WI to Romney, CA/CT/IL/NJ to Bush, and IN/LA/VA/OH/TX to Huckabee.

[Thomas D]

I assume no one wins a majority of delegates with this map.

[badgate]

This map has Romney up by two states (including D.C.) over Bush. But we don't know how the all-important territories voted.

[Boston Bread]

Huck would win more of the caucus states like CO, MN. Santorum won there in 2012 so why not? And I think Bush does better in the coastal south, maybe wins GA, NC

[Mehmentum]

The problem with this is that Bush is shut out of the 4 early states (IA, NH, SC, and NV), it would seem that after Huck winning IA and SC and Romney winning NH and NV, the media will zero in on the horserace between these two and Bush will be forced to concede.

The thing is, winning Iowa or South Carolina is difficult enough with just one establishment candidate in the race (though far from impossible to be sure), but Bush will be splitting at least some of the vote with Romney, which makes it all the harder to win either of those two states.

The most likely scenario for this three way to occur is:
1.) Bush wins in an extremely divided field in Iowa.  Huckabee gets a close second, with Romney in third.

2.) Romney pulls a Clinton and wins NH after coming third in Iowa.  He is helped by a quasi-home state advantage and being a New Englander in general.

3.) Most of the conservative candidates drop out, allowing Huckabee to win in SC over a divided establishment vote.

[IceSpear]

The problem with this is that Bush is shut out of the 4 early states (IA, NH, SC, and NV), it would seem that after Huck winning IA and SC and Romney winning NH and NV, the media will zero in on the horserace between these two and Bush will be forced to concede.

The thing is, winning Iowa or South Carolina is difficult enough with just one establishment candidate in the race (though far from impossible to be sure), but Bush will be splitting at least some of the vote with Romney, which makes it all the harder to win either of those two states.

The most likely scenario for this three way to occur is:
1.) Bush wins in an extremely divided field in Iowa.  Huckabee gets a close second, with Romney in third.

2.) Romney pulls a Clinton and wins NH after coming third in Iowa.  He is helped by a quasi-home state advantage and being a New Englander in general.

3.) Most of the conservative candidates drop out, allowing Huckabee to win in SC over a divided establishment vote.

This is a good point. It's hard to see anyone who doesn't win at least one of IA/NH/SC staying in for the long haul.

[Nichlemn]

The problem with this is that Bush is shut out of the 4 early states (IA, NH, SC, and NV), it would seem that after Huck winning IA and SC and Romney winning NH and NV, the media will zero in on the horserace between these two and Bush will be forced to concede.

The thing is, winning Iowa or South Carolina is difficult enough with just one establishment candidate in the race (though far from impossible to be sure), but Bush will be splitting at least some of the vote with Romney, which makes it all the harder to win either of those two states.

The most likely scenario for this three way to occur is:
1.) Bush wins in an extremely divided field in Iowa.  Huckabee gets a close second, with Romney in third.

2.) Romney pulls a Clinton and wins NH after coming third in Iowa.  He is helped by a quasi-home state advantage and being a New Englander in general.

3.) Most of the conservative candidates drop out, allowing Huckabee to win in SC over a divided establishment vote.

This is a good point. It's hard to see anyone who doesn't win at least one of IA/NH/SC staying in for the long haul.

I agree that this is possibly true (though I think in a three-way race where you're performing competitively in those states, you probably still have a shot. Giuliani is supposedly the epitome of how you have to win early states, but he was doing just terribly in those states). But just personally, it seems so frigging dumb that this can be the case. Bush could be the most popular guy, but if he doesn't win in several early states that no-one expected he should have won, suddenly he shouldn't be the most popular guy anymore? Ridiculous.

[IceSpear]

The problem with this is that Bush is shut out of the 4 early states (IA, NH, SC, and NV), it would seem that after Huck winning IA and SC and Romney winning NH and NV, the media will zero in on the horserace between these two and Bush will be forced to concede.

The thing is, winning Iowa or South Carolina is difficult enough with just one establishment candidate in the race (though far from impossible to be sure), but Bush will be splitting at least some of the vote with Romney, which makes it all the harder to win either of those two states.

The most likely scenario for this three way to occur is:
1.) Bush wins in an extremely divided field in Iowa.  Huckabee gets a close second, with Romney in third.

2.) Romney pulls a Clinton and wins NH after coming third in Iowa.  He is helped by a quasi-home state advantage and being a New Englander in general.

3.) Most of the conservative candidates drop out, allowing Huckabee to win in SC over a divided establishment vote.

This is a good point. It's hard to see anyone who doesn't win at least one of IA/NH/SC staying in for the long haul.

I agree that this is possibly true (though I think in a three-way race where you're performing competitively in those states, you probably still have a shot. Giuliani is supposedly the epitome of how you have to win early states, but he was doing just terribly in those states). But just personally, it seems so frigging dumb that this can be the case. Bush could be the most popular guy, but if he doesn't win in several early states that no-one expected he should have won, suddenly he shouldn't be the most popular guy anymore? Ridiculous.

Yeah, I agree it's pretty dumb. People who live in April/May/June primary states are almost always irrelevant, which is ridiculous. I think having groups of states vote in blocks would be a much better option. I'm pretty sure I saw a proposal for this on Atlas before.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Maine would vote Romney.

[Blair]

Is the Huck this popular?

[stegosaurus]

Is the Huck this popular?

Probably not. The social conservatives that aren't satisfied with Romney's evolution on cultural issues may back him, but its more likely that they'll back his strongest challenger in protest.

[bobloblaw]

SC is more of an establishment state than peope realize. Didnt McCain win it in 2008?

[Mehmentum]

SC is more of an establishment state than peope realize. Didnt McCain win it in 2008?

It went for Bush over McCain in 2000, McCain over Romney and Huck in 2008, and Gingrich over Romney in 2012.  It could go either way.

The thing is, in a race where Romney and Bush are competing with each other, the subsequent vote splitting would give Huckabee an advantage.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

SC is more of an establishment state than peope realize. Didnt McCain win it in 2008?

It went for Bush over McCain in 2000, McCain over Romney and Huck in 2008, and Gingrich over Romney in 2012.  It could go either way.

The thing is, in a race where Romney and Bush are competing with each other, the subsequent vote splitting would give Huckabee an advantage.

And this is what did Huckabee in in '08 with Fred Thompson. With such a large number of real contenders, anyone with a built in base tends to benefit real fast.

Also SC is quite establishment. I know there's a lot of rural areas, but they are quite economically conservative as well, and there are enormous properties in the Charleston area that probably have similar ideology though maybe slightly less SoCon. There's a reason Santorum couldn't win in '08. Gingrich wasn't pure establishment, but in a way, he was relatively. The didnt want Santorum, and it wasnt just because Gingrich is from Georgia. He was dead and old news without this victory. He was just the bigfest mix if conservative and establishment available.

Bush could be a spoiler for Huckabee here, but it will depend how the campaign goes. Will people view Romney as a truer conservative now thus minimizing Bush's southern appeal? I absolutely believe so, and it forces a much different vote split. Bush probably peels off a few votes from both (or depending how you view it, Romney peels off a ton from him. Romney could get a 3:2 margin over Bush in SC, possibly 2:1 if he manages to get support from a lot of (non-overtly Christian) conservatives. Bush may also completely wait for Florida in such a situation and depend heavily on them (much like Rudy, but you know, actually having a prayer that it works). My guess is Santorum, Jindal, Perry, and maybe Carson drop out by this point, and the support lines up behind Huckabee (though Perry himself might not - I'd bet he backs Bush but wants to stop Romney in the short term).

Paul and Walker's early success if they have any keeps them afloat through this, but neither really has any great calling here. Poor performances by Cruz and Graham really end them at this point, but they'll wait until this big one is over. And because of people like maistre, Christie struggles despite being NY's winner. Maybe one of those 5 (Walker?) cracks 10%, but the 6 of them splinter the field enough that Huck could edge out Romney with 30% - the same total as '08 except with a splintered establishment stopping Romney.

[IceSpear]

SC is more of an establishment state than peope realize. Didnt McCain win it in 2008?

Only because Thompson and Huckabee split the right wing vote. Gingrich won it in a landslide in 2012, remember.