The primary schedule might give the nomination to Romney

[King]

A new rule to the 2012 GOP primaries is the April 1 "Winner Take All Rule," in which all primaries and caucuses held before that date have to be proportionately allocated while all the primaries held after can be winner take all (most likely will be as per tradition of the GOP primary system). This is significant as all the early primaries are states to be won by the Anti-Romney:

Iowa
South Carolina
Florida
Kansas
Wisconsin
Oklahoma
Texas
Tennessee
Virginia
Alabama
Mississippi
Louisiana

All of these are states that will likely vote for Perry, Bachmann, or even Paul over Romney.  But none of those candidates will be able to fully cash in as the delegate will be proportionately allocated and Romney will still rack up support from his 2nd-4th place finishes and the high number of candidates will split the vote so much that it prevents a winner (likely Perry IMO) from racking up too many delegates.

But then look at the winner take all primaries in April:

District of Columbia
Maryland
Connecticut
Delaware
New York
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island

Romney. Romney. Romney.  If Mittens can hang on and stay competitive by April, he will not only likely go undefeated for an entire month but the competition will get 0 delegates in the process.  That could be a stake in the heart of a Perry or Bachmann campaign.  After April, it gets more muddled with a few more Southern states, but big Romney prizes remain still in California, Oregon, and Utah.

[Atuck123]

This is why i believe Romney will win the republican nomination,but I believe that Romney will win Virginia.

[Eraserhead]

The only thing is that if Anti-Romney(s) won all of those early states, even he would end up being decapitated by the mainstream media. He would need to win some of them to prove that he's viable. Obviously if he can do that, he'll be in great shape.

[emailking]

Except on the Republican side "proportionately allocated" is allowed to be implemented as "winner take all" by
Congressional District. So Romeny may get significant support in those states while getting few or no delegates out of
it. This is in contrast to the Democratic primaries, most of which are proportional allocation by Congressional District.

[Mr. Morden]

Except on the Republican side "proportionately allocated" is allowed to be implemented as "winner take all" by
Congressional District. So Romeny may get significant support in those states while getting few or no delegates out of
it. This is in contrast to the Democratic primaries, most of which are proportional allocation by Congressional District.

Correct.  Or rather, "proportional representation" by the RNC's definition just means that a certain portion of the delegates have to allocated proportionally statewide, but the majority can be WTA by congressional district.  Which means that if you win a state by like 10 points or more, you're likely to get nearly all the delegates, since you'll probably win nearly every CD.

Here, these are the delegate allocation rules for Texas and Michigan:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/TX-R

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/MI-R

Yes, the RNC actually counts that system as "proportional representation".

And even the states that vote after April 1 aren't all going to be statewide WTA.  They have that option if they want to take it, but they don't have to.  New York, for example, was statewide WTA last time, but will not be this time, though it votes in April.  As I mentioned here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=128721.msg2974426#msg2974426

it looks like the only GOP primaries that will be pure statewide WTA this time will be "New Jersey (assuming Christie signs the bill that moves the primary to June), Connecticut, Montana, Utah, and DC."

[Bull Moose Base]

Once again Joementum was on this long before the rest of the world.  Here's a thread from over a year ago, after the new rules, where Morden and I discuss when California going is best for Romney (and for California).  My own take was that Romney probably wants it to move later in primary season, trading the chance for early momentum for a big, late delegate prize fearing the good possibility that the new rules + no calendar change could completely screw him up.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=120597.0

If the GOP is shifting to more proportional representation, I'd bet on a more drawn out race (depending on the field).  And if unlike the Dems in 2008, a late race would be winner-take-all, I think it's arguably worth the gamble of waiting.  You're probably right that Whitman, if she wins, would be scared of that bet.  But I do think CA breaking rules has the potential to screw Romney up somewhat.  If instead of 100% of those CA delegates, he ends up with 25%.  On the other hand, his chances of winning California probably diminishes the longer the race goes on with someone able to get momentum.  I'm starting to think his position is more precarious than I used to.

By "breaking the rules" I meant that California would not move from Super Tuesday and, as Romney-friendly turf, he'd be missing the chance for a big delegate jackpot at the end of a long slog.  But also CA's delegate slate would be subjected to halving penalties if it went before March.

Then from the Great Calendar Megathread...

I spotted Romney's allies lobbying hard to move Florida back into the Spring and was a lone voice arguing it was all about Romney trying to re-game with the new rules.

I assume Team Romney crapped themselves somewhat when the new calendar rules passed.  The penalties are less problematic for Florida as a state than they are for Romney as a candidate, since they stand to give him much weaker leverage out of his regional strength.  I think a plausible theory is that his allies are trying to kill the cow who starts the stampede, or simply protect Florida as a big, fat jackpot for Romney.  And consider it in context with the general- hey, am I coining this?- Palinophobia from the Bushes.

I assume that Romney would love to see Florida hold a prominent straw poll shortly before the Iowa caucuses, and steal some of Iowa's "first in the nation" thunder.  He'd have a better chance at winning the FL straw poll than the Iowa caucuses, because the former would rely more on money and organization.  Of course, a straw poll wouldn't actually allocate any delegates, so there's every chance that other candidates skip it, and the media doesn't give it much coverage, which means that it wouldn't matter.  It only works if more than one candidate wants to contest it.

I agree Romney would love a Florida straw poll but that's not mutually exclusive with a January primary though this Thrasher fellow is linking them.  This is about Romney wanting to move Florida later.  The momentum he would generate by winning Florida in late January would be easily offset by the damage the penalties his good states will pay if nothing changes, hence my verb-object choice "crapped themselves".  I think he is furiously lobbying to move states later.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unless he crashes and burns before the primaries start, Romney is likely to lose Ia and SC and win Nev and NH. Given that, with NY, Ca, and NJ pretty early on, Romney has some big states he's likely to win- if polling stays somewhat in the vicinity it is now and no moderate suddenly starts doing well.

Plus, if the calendar is pretty similar to 2008, Romney didn't compete in the later states thus has a lot fewer folks who voted for him last time around. He took second in Florida and a pretty close second at that, so he has something to work with.

My own take is that early mo is less important for Romney than for everyone else.  Or at least that he's confident of enough momentum from winning NH and NV to prefer Florida avoid the penalty.  The attempt to move in Florida, being orchestrated by a steering committee chair from Romney's 2008 campaign and a guy he raised serious money for in a close race, is, I'd say, fairly strong evidence of Romney's strategy.  The guy even cites the party penalties in his explanation.

Romney's strategy is being reported to expect a couple early losses to go with wins in NH and NV, hunker down for a long, expensive slog.  And/or they're just lowering expectations in IA and SC.  No doubt he doesn't want Pawlenty to be the other finalist and prefers a Bachmann or Palin blows him out of the race early.

Mikado, definitely. And many late states looked bad for Romney.  But the California bill to go in June passed committee easily, which depending on who he faces could be like playing Game 7 at home. I do think it'll be unsettled until June.  One can only hope the race is long, messy and dirty.  Even as a Democrat, Obama vs. Hillary was high entertainment.

New York has now moved to April 24:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2011/07/cuomo-signs-bill-moving-new-york.html

Calendar in the OP has been updated.  Also, the California legislature has passed a bill moving the state's primary to June 5th:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2011/07/california-senate-passes-june.html

but it's not official until Brown signs it.

Feb. 7th is dead as Super Tuesday.  March 6th is the new Super Tuesday.  Though it's an extremely weak Super Tuesday, as there are only 7 states voting that day.  (Though a couple more will probably end up joining.)  But yes, March 6th is the date that'll have the most delegates at stake.  If both California and New Jersey move to June 5th as expected, then June 5th will probably be the date with the second most delegates at stake.

Very bad for Mitt if they move back.

I'll dissent.  I think it's really good news for him.  I like his chances of winning NY and CA and their being penalized could have cost him the nomination.  And I don't think winning them earlier would have given him a knockout in any case.

Now, New York won't be WTA anyway so my point was moot.  But California is WTA and huge for Romney.  Not that Perry or Bachmann won't have good WTA states in PA, (OH?), or could even win CA.  But I've always thought the new delegate rules were going to be a mess for Romney unless the biggest Romney-friendly states moved to protect their delegate prizes for him.  Which is not to say it's unambiguous.  It's a gamble and Perry could already be the presumptive by March.  And it's not even his gamble.  California did it to save money.  But my opinion hasn't changed.  It's better for Romney that California primary happen in June and there's a good chance it'll save him.

[Torie]

Except on the Republican side "proportionately allocated" is allowed to be implemented as "winner take all" by
Congressional District. So Romeny may get significant support in those states while getting few or no delegates out of
it. This is in contrast to the Democratic primaries, most of which are proportional allocation by Congressional District.

Remember that under this winner take all be congressional district, with a bonus for the winner of the state, McCain got 90% of the delegates over Romney in CA in 2008.  That is what finished Mittens off. In big states, CD's where there are not many Pubbies tend to vote for more moderate types. So the system does work for Mittens this time, since he is the "moderate."

[Guderian]

April 1?! Please, this is GOP primary we are talking about. Someone will catch fire early and just string win after win. My guess is that Florida will be the last meaningful state.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

yeah, the Tea Party had no effect out West or in the NE in 2010...so, 2012 will see typical pre-2010 GOP primary voting patterns...Therefore, RomneyCare Mittens will win many of these states...

...if so, then I'm a Chinese Jet Pilot!

[Mr. Morden]

But California is WTA and huge for Romney.  Not that Perry or Bachmann won't have good WTA states in PA, (OH?), or could even win CA.

None of those states are pure statewide WTA.  Just like in 2008, for example, the bulk of California's delegates are WTA by congressional district (with a handful reserved as WTA for the statewide winner).  Again, to quote myself, "it looks like the only GOP primaries that will be pure statewide WTA this time will be New Jersey (assuming Christie signs the bill that moves the primary to June), Connecticut, Montana, Utah, and DC."

There will be quite a few states that use WTA by CD.  However, like Torie says, in most of the states that allocate delegates by CD (including California), every CD gets the same number of delegates.  Which means that the handful of Republicans who vote in heavily Dem. districts will have disproportionate power.

[Bull Moose Base]

But California is WTA and huge for Romney.  Not that Perry or Bachmann won't have good WTA states in PA, (OH?), or could even win CA.

None of those states are pure statewide WTA.  Just like in 2008, for example, the bulk of California's delegates are WTA by congressional district (with a handful reserved as WTA for the statewide winner).  Again, to quote myself, "it looks like the only GOP primaries that will be pure statewide WTA this time will be New Jersey (assuming Christie signs the bill that moves the primary to June), Connecticut, Montana, Utah, and DC."

There will be quite a few states that use WTA by CD.  However, like Torie says, in most of the states that allocate delegates by CD (including California), every CD gets the same number of delegates.  Which means that the handful of Republicans who vote in heavily Dem. districts will have disproportionate power.

Ohhhh.  I didn't realize this.  Hm.  I'd ballpark it that urban Republicans then have more leverage which I assume would be good for Romney.  Is there a standard % of delegates in each (post-April Fools) state that are WTA by state?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Of those potential/likely WTA states:
New Jersey -Romney
Connecticut - Romney
Montana - Perry or Bachmann
Utah - What do you think?
DC - There are Republicans here?

In some places, having a lot of WTA by congressional district, benefits Romney. For instance in GA, Romney did well in the Atlanta metro and thus he could possibly compete for a good 4 or 5 congressional districts in a state that would likely go to Perry overall.

[Mr. Morden]

Is there a standard % of delegates in each (post-April Fools) state that are WTA by state?

The short answer is no, there isn't a fixed percentage.  The slightly longer answer is that large Democratic states tend to allocate more of their delegates by congressional district.  Arkansas, for example, allocates 12 of its 33 delegates by CD, while California allocates a whopping 159 of its 169 delegates by CD.  Both of them allocate 3 delegates to every CD, regardless of party strength in the district.  But then there are a few states, like Pennsylvania, that allocate delegates by CD, but give more delegates to districts that voted more Republican in the last election.

In short, states with primaries after April 1 can allocate their delegates however they like, so there's a crazy patchwork of different systems.  But awarding a large fraction of the delegates by CD is one of the more commonly used systems.  And most of the states that do that give each district the same number of delegates, which is going to tilt power towards more urban Republicans.

[Bacon King]

This reminds me a lot of the "Guiliani doesn't need to win anything until Florida" arguments made in 2008, and we all know how well that strategy worked for him.