Republican Primary headed for a deal?

[Keystone Phil]

Santorum has not really broken out of, for the most part, primary and caucus victories except in states where evangelical Christians comprise a very major sector of the Republican caucus and primary vote. 

Yeah, outside of the GOP base in primaries, Santorum hasn't done well in primaries.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Romney is 0-fer in midwest + South. Unless that changes, or Newt quits this is going to convention.

[BigSkyBob]

It's simple math - Romney did ok - but he didn't do well enough to secure himself the nomination.

If Santorum ever wants another lobbying job in Washington, he better drop out soon? Same goes for Captain Moon Base.

Are you serious in threatening Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich? In a Representative Republic folks stand for office and the electorate chooses from them. In a banana republic goons are sent to intimate potential foes, or worse. The majority of Republicans in this country have yet to have had a chance to have their say in whom is the nominee, and, the clear majority of those folks want to vote for someone other than Mitt Romney. Your threats against Santorum and Gingrich are not merely impudent, they are a slap across the face of the majority of Republicans in the this country!

[Whacker77]

Another to view the chase for delegates was stated by Chuck Todd on MSNBC this morning.  He says the view is Romney must win between 45% to 47% of all remaining delegates to win.  His throwing the WTA states in with the proportional states, but he's just making the point as to how many Romney must still win.  As I said, if Romney is only getting 40% in competative states and Santorum doesn't fall apart, what is the reason to believe Romney suddenly starts getting 45% to 47% of the vote?  Of course, that could all change if Romney wins in the south next week.

[BigSkyBob]

Santorum has not really broken out of, for the most part, primary and caucus victories except in states where evangelical Christians comprise a very major sector of the Republican caucus and primary vote.  So Santorum's prospects are, at best, dismal, and most realistically, non existent.

Romney has won in states with either New Englanders, or a large number of transplants, or  states with large Mormon populations. In the rest of the country, he is running in the mid-thirties in Northern states, and in the high twenties in Southern states. No wonder he is desperate to have Santorum and Gingrich drop out. Having rigged the calender, changed the rules, and manipulated the delegate allocation formulas to favor Romney, the establishment is desperate to make Romney appear to the candidate of choice of rank-and-file Republicans by presenting them ballots in the remaining states with "Romney" being the only option.

[Likely Voter]

Another to view the chase for delegates was stated by Chuck Todd on MSNBC this morning.  He says the view is Romney must win between 45% to 47% of all remaining delegates to win.  His throwing the WTA states in with the proportional states, but he's just making the point as to how many Romney must still win.  As I said, if Romney is only getting 40% in competative states and Santorum doesn't fall apart, what is the reason to believe Romney suddenly starts getting 45% to 47% of the vote?  Of course, that could all change if Romney wins in the south next week.

Once again, there is not a one to one relationship between popular vote % and delegate winnings. Romney has garnered a majority of delegates with a plurality of votes. And he can continue to do so all the way to Utah. That is how the delegate math works.

Even John McCain didn't get a majority of votes in 2008 and he was the presumptive nominee by March.

[Torie]

Assuming Mittens falls short in the end of getting X number of delegates (whatever that is, to put him over the top on his own power), just who is the zombie person who gets nominated?  How is this all going to work? The story line is going to have to get really convoluted, and whomever the zombie is, it is then put two months until the General election. How is that going to work out?

There in my view just a surreal quality to all of this chatter.

[Whacker77]

Another to view the chase for delegates was stated by Chuck Todd on MSNBC this morning.  He says the view is Romney must win between 45% to 47% of all remaining delegates to win.  His throwing the WTA states in with the proportional states, but he's just making the point as to how many Romney must still win.  As I said, if Romney is only getting 40% in competative states and Santorum doesn't fall apart, what is the reason to believe Romney suddenly starts getting 45% to 47% of the vote?  Of course, that could all change if Romney wins in the south next week.

Once again, there is not a one to one relationship between popular vote % and delegate winnings. Romney has garnered a majority of delegates with a plurality of votes. And he can continue to do so all the way to Utah. That is how the delegate math works.

Even John McCain didn't get a majority of votes in 2008 and he was the presumptive nominee by March.

There might not be a one to one relationship between votes and delegates, but even Romney's own delegate math presser yesterday showed he has a hard time coming to 1144.  Santorum is going to continue to win conservative areas and that is going to be a problem for Romney.

In the last two days, Jay Cost, John Avlon of the Daily Beast, Chuck Todd of MSNBC, and even Joe Scarborough have said it will be difficult for Romney to get to 1144.  It is not a given and if he continues to win just 40% of the vote while Santorum gets 39% of the vote, it's hard to see him clearing the 1144 mark.

Romney needs a break out win or he might have to cut a deal.

[Whacker77]

Assuming Mittens falls short in the end of getting X number of delegates (whatever that is, to put him over the top on his own power), just who is the zombie person who gets nominated?  How is this all going to work? The story line is going to have to get really convoluted, and whomever the zombie is, it is then put two months until the General election. How is that going to work out?

There in my view just a surreal quality to all of this chatter.

Romney would very likely be the nominee, especially if he cam very close to 1144, but he would likely need to cut a deal with Paul.  Given what we know about Paul voters, are they going to follow his lead and vote for Romney?  They might not.

If Romney gets stymied and ends up with 900 or 925 delegates, is it a given the party would still nominate him if he couldn't seal the deal in the voting process and if he's trailing badly in the polls?  Of course, this is the unlikely doomsday scenario, but what about this process hasn't been crazy?

[Likely Voter]

Again I never said it was easy or a given. I just reject the notion that it is more likely for Romney to fall short.

He is going to have a rough couple of weeks with three southern primaries and I think by the end of March he may no longer have a majority, But April is going to be a very good month for him with lots north east primaries so it is hard to imagine him not making up for that lost ground and again having a good sized majority at the end of April, but still well short of what he needs. Then May is again going to be a tough month, with some wins and losses, but picking up delegates all the way, with Texas as his biggest challenge. If he can make it through May with anything close to 50% of total delegates awarded so far, then he has it in the bag with a series of friendly primaries in June (CA, NJ, UT, NM).

[BigSkyBob]

Assuming Mittens falls short in the end of getting X number of delegates (whatever that is, to put him over the top on his own power), just who is the zombie person who gets nominated?  How is this all going to work? The story line is going to have to get really convoluted, and whomever the zombie is, it is then put two months until the General election. How is that going to work out?

There in my view just a surreal quality to all of this chatter.

Rick Santorum/Rand Paul with Gingrich promised a prominent position. Or, maybe, Gingrich/Paul with Santorum as Secretary of State. That is unless a fifth candidate enters the race late.

Clinton and Obama slugged it out until June. It ended with both coming up short of the necessary number of bound delegates. If two candidates ran close for the entire schedule without a decisive winner, why expect a decisive winner among a field of four bunched candidates? If Mitt Romney can't break away from the pack, Mitt Romney has noone but Mitt Romney to blame for that fact.

It is a pathetic sight to see the candidate who can't win on his own merits demand unilateral surrender.

[Torie]

Mittens is demanding nothing. He is just going about the business of carrying out his blueprint - step by step. I think he assumes that his opposition will never drop out.

Granted, I do tend to be rather hostile to these alternative Pub self inflicted seppuku narratives. Maybe I am delusional about the quantum of sanity and pragmatism from my point of view that is left in my party. I certainly hope not.

[BigSkyBob]

Mittens is demanding nothing. He is just going about the business of carrying out his blueprint - step by step. I think he assumes that his opposition will never drop out.

Granted, I do tend to be rather hostile to these alternative Pub self inflicted seppuku narratives. Maybe I am delusional about the quantum of sanity and pragmatism from my point of view that is left in my party. I certainly hope not.

The Republican seppuku narrative began when Romney embraced scorched earth tactics, and ends with the defeat of Mitt Romney. It is just of question of badly Romney is willing to damage the Republican party to pursue, but not achieve, his personal ambition of being President.

The race has become more of a hostage situation than a campaign due to Romney. What you call "sanity and pragmaticism" I call capitulation to those intent on "rule or ruin." If Romney have had a legitimate claim to leadership of the Republican party he would have made it by now.

[Torie]

I guess your above post may give folks a hint as to why we support different candidates perhaps. We just see the world through totally different lenses. Cheers.

[Whacker77]

Again I never said it was easy or a given. I just reject the notion that it is more likely for Romney to fall short.

He is going to have a rough couple of weeks with three southern primaries and I think by the end of March he may no longer have a majority, But April is going to be a very good month for him with lots north east primaries so it is hard to imagine him not making up for that lost ground and again having a good sized majority at the end of April, but still well short of what he needs. Then May is again going to be a tough month, with some wins and losses, but picking up delegates all the way, with Texas as his biggest challenge. If he can make it through May with anything close to 50% of total delegates awarded so far, then he has it in the bag with a series of friendly primaries in June (CA, NJ, UT, NM).

I shouldn't have said likely, but I was basing it on Romney's consistent ability to get 40%.

[BigSkyBob]

I guess your above post may give folks a hint as to why we support different candidates perhaps. We just see the world through totally different lenses. Cheers.

At least I have the decency to argue why I believe that my position is better and truer, as opposed to smearing anyone whom disagrees with me as "insane."

[Torie]

I guess your above post may give folks a hint as to why we support different candidates perhaps. We just see the world through totally different lenses. Cheers.

At least I have the decency to argue why I believe that my position is better and truer, as opposed to smearing anyone whom disagrees with me as "insane."

Well I take your point actually. But to be "fair" to myself, I think I explain my policy views pretty throughly, and in some detail, and why, and why I don't think either Rick or Newt (who granted is worse than Rick because he displays a contempt for the rule of law every chance he gets it seems) are fit to be POTUS (that is the important thing), and certainly not electable. I just didn't do it on this thread. This thread wasn't about that.

[BigSkyBob]

I guess your above post may give folks a hint as to why we support different candidates perhaps. We just see the world through totally different lenses. Cheers.

At least I have the decency to argue why I believe that my position is better and truer, as opposed to smearing anyone whom disagrees with me as "insane."

Well I take your point actually. But to be "fair" to myself, I think I explain my policy views pretty throughly, and in some detail, and why, and why I don't think either Rick or Newt (who granted is worse than Rick because he displays a contempt for the rule of law every chance he gets it seems) are fit to be POTUS (that is the important thing), and certainly not electable. I just didn't do it on this thread. This thread wasn't about that.

1) Here is an example of "rule of law." In some jurisdictions, if you don't shovel your sidewalk, if someone falls it is "an act of God" according the law and your are immune from civil action. However, if you shovel your sidewalk, and someone fall your may be sued for being "negligent" in how you shoveled the snow. That is the law disfavors the civic-minded homeowner.

If you asked a thousand people, "Should the justice system favor or disfavor homeowners whom shovel the snow along the sidewalks in front of their homes?" I would suspect the vote would be 1000 to zero in favor of the shovelers because that is the self-evidently more just option. Somehow, we have a system that noone would choose for themselves, but, has been chosen for us.  That system is "rule by law." As "rule by law" tracks further and further from what is just, decent and equitable a righteous contempt for the system results. Newt is speaking for middle-America here.

You can try to kill the message by killing the messenger, but that won't change the reality that people find jokes like, Q: "What do you call fifty lawyers chained together at the bottom of the sea?" A: "A good start!;" and "Why don't you read about lawyers being attacked by sharks off the coast of Florida?" A: "Professional courtesy," to be funny for a reason.

2) Calling people whom support candidates you oppose "insane," and calling the candidates you oppose "unfit for office" are merely variations on the same theme: personalizing policy differences.
Gingrich has thirty years of relevent experience, while Santorum has over a dozen. If anything, they compare favorably to serving one term as a politically failed governor. I won't even go into how tone deaf it would be to nominate a former Wall Street wheeler-dealer after the trillion dollar bailouts. While Romney has the wrong resume, and is light in relevent experience, I am not going to try to disqualify him as "unfit for office." I believe people can sort these things out at the ballot box.

[Whacker77]

Both Nate Silver of NYT and Sean Trende of RCP have stories today suggesting the same thing.  Romney could end up 70-100 delegates short of 1144 and would need to rely on unpledged RNC delegates.  That would put him over the top.

This can all change quickly though.  If Romney wins Alabama or Mississippi, the race is over.  If Newt gets out and gives Santorum a one on one shot, Romney has some concerns.  Right now, I think it's more likely Romney wins in either Alabama or Mississippi.

[Likely Voter]

No one is arguing with the notion that Romney might not make his 1144 number. The pushback was on your OP where you said it was "likely" that he would not make it. If you read Silver's article today he makes the point that the baseline (which includes Gingrich dropping out next week) still has Romney making the number and that even if Santorum gets a bump, Romney can still get the number with the uncommitted delegates.

Things dont get into the territory where Romney needs to cut a deal until Santorum starts winning lots of states, including California.

[Lincoln Republican]

Santorum has not really broken out of, for the most part, primary and caucus victories except in states where evangelical Christians comprise a very major sector of the Republican caucus and primary vote.  

Yeah, outside of the GOP base in primaries, Santorum hasn't done well in primaries.

The conservative Christian evangelical Republican base is about the only group that Santorum has appeal to.

Not a recipe for success in the general.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Call me when Romney delivers Rhode Island.

[Lincoln Republican]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Call me when Romney delivers Rhode Island.

I'll call you election night which will be when Romney wins independents, swing voters, cross over Democrats, and therefore the swing states, who and which are, obviously, far beyond the reach of the very narrow based Santorum.