Who would win contested convention?

[Likely Voter]

The Santorum and Gingrich campaigns admit their guys will likely not get a majority of delegates, but they can keep Mitt from getting 1144 too. Their assumption is that a contested convention will result in one of them being nominated.

So lets assume a likely scenario where Romney only has a plurality. Also that even if all the unpledged delegates swung to Romney, it wouldn't be enough for a majority. Something like this 1st ballot delegate breakdown....

Romney 47%
Santorum: 41%
Gingrich: 6%
Paul: 6%

So...who does the convention nominate in this kind of scenario?


...and how doe they do it? (cutting a deal? defections by opponents delegates?)

[useful idiot]

I'm assuming it'd be Santorum if Romney doesn't win on the first ballot. I don't know what dark horse would place their hat in the ring, other than Palin or another no-chance candidate. If it goes to the convention that means Santorum will have won a significant number of states (places like NC, IN, WI, KY, PA, TX, WV, LA, possibly NJ and NM). To not have it go to him would hardly be fair. I think you'd see defections from Gingrich and Romney towards him, but few defections from Santorum to either of the other camps. Gingrich isn't going to back Romney, period. His delegates have nowhere else to go. The conservatives who back Romney because of his electability wouldn't have much reason to stay with him, because in that kind of fight Romney becomes so weak as to be almost unelectable, imo.

However, if Gingrich stays in the race and hasn't endorsed Santorum I think it's a moot point, because Romney will almost certainly secure a majority unless Rick pulls off some major wins in IL and WI here in the next few weeks.

[GPORTER]

I could see Gingrich endorsing Santorum at the convention if Romney doesn't win on the first ballot.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

The problem with the 'dark horse' theory - is that the folks who prefer Palin, are perfectly happy with Santorum.

[useful idiot]

The problem with the 'dark horse' theory - is that the folks who prefer Palin, are perfectly happy with Santorum.

They'd largely be happy with Santorum over Romney, but I think there's less overlap between Santorum and Palin's constituencies than you'd imagine. There's far more overlap between her supporters and those of Gingrich. I'd even go so far as to say that within the conservative Christian electorate there's a definite difference between those you'd find supporting Santorum and those supporting Gingrich/Palin.

[Likely Voter]

If it goes to the convention that means Santorum will have won a significant number of states (places like NC, IN, WI, KY, PA, TX, WV, LA, possibly NJ and NM). To not have it go to him would hardly be fair.

But Romney would still have more delegates (including more pledged delegates) and more states won, even if Rick won the states you mention above. So how exactly would it be unfair to Rick?

To move into a 'fairness' thing, Rick is going to have to go in with more of something...more pledged delegates, more popular votes and/or more states won.

Right now the Santorum campaign is saying that in the above scenario, Gingrich delgates will flock to Rick along with a chunk of Romney delegates who they claim are going to be stealth conservatives who prefer Rick because they were picked at county and state conventions. I am not sure I buy this argument

[fezzyfestoon]

I can't imagine a circumstance where the Republican Party has the balls to deprive the plurality winner of the nomination, especially when I'm sure the media would turn it into 10X the news story necessary. People would be riled up by the media implanting the idea of some sort of injustice or false nominee that they would foam at the mouth over.

[clarence]

I agree with fezzyfestoon- whoever wins the most popular votes will be the nominee

[ajb]

I can't imagine a circumstance where the Republican Party has the balls to deprive the plurality winner of the nomination, especially when I'm sure the media would turn it into 10X the news story necessary. People would be riled up by the media implanting the idea of some sort of injustice or false nominee that they would foam at the mouth over.

Romney currently has about 40% of the popular vote (Santorum is at about a quarter), and there are some states ahead that should be good for Romney even if he falters. Under those circumstances, I don't think Santorum getting 41% of the delegates would be enough for him to be handed the nomination in Tampa. He needs to dominate the race going ahead, not simply run competitive with Romney, and he needs to convince the party that Romney is not a viable general election candidate.

[Likely Voter]

I agree with fezzyfestoon- whoever wins the most popular votes will be the nominee

It might not be that simple. Obama had more pledged delegates but Hillary had more popular votes in 2008. Before getting to the convnetion (or even a chance at a second ballot) the Supers backed Obama and put him over the top. There was some grumbling, but he did ok.

[clarence]

I didn't realize HIllary beat Obama in popular vote... I am surprised there was not more outrage. I thought it was the other way around- with Hillary winning more delegates but Obama with popular vote

[Lіef]

Clinton won the popular vote because the actual vote totals aren't recorded in Democratic caucuses, only the delegate totals. Obama won all but one of the caucuses, often with very healthy margins. So the popular vote is leaving out the votes from some of his best states.

[fezzyfestoon]

Ah but 2008 was a one on one race, which mucks it up a lot more. Neither had an outright claim to the lead. In this race it's pretty clear Romney is the front-runner in all respects. In order for the right to lay claim to a split race, one would almost have to endorse the other sooner rather than later. ajb is right that in order to really be considered a legitimate nominee, Santorum will have to do extraordinarily well until the convention. Romney is also right when it comes to his mathematical approach putting him at a massive advantage.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Hillary beat Obama in popular vote factoring in Michigan and Florida, which were penalized by DNC rules, partially because Obama wasn't on the ballot in the former.

[Oakvale]

Clinton won the popular vote because the actual vote totals aren't recorded in Democratic caucuses, only the delegate totals. Obama won all but one of the caucuses, often with very healthy margins. So the popular vote is leaving out the votes from some of his best states.

^ Yep.

The "Hillary won the popular vote!" was a popular myth among the always amusing Hillaryis44 crowd.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

To move into a 'fairness' thing, Rick is going to have to go in with more of something...more pledged delegates, more popular votes and/or more states won.

Right now the Santorum campaign is saying that in the above scenario, Gingrich delgates will flock to Rick along with a chunk of Romney delegates who they claim are going to be stealth conservatives who prefer Rick because they were picked at county and state conventions. I am not sure I buy this argument

Popular vote essentially disenfranchises caucus states. If you're going to do it this way, take the percentages and split them up among the electoral college votes.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

In this race it's pretty clear Romney is the front-runner in all respects. In order for the right to lay claim to a split race, one would almost have to endorse the other sooner rather than later. ajb is right that in order to really be considered a legitimate nominee, Santorum will have to do extraordinarily well until the convention. Romney is also right when it comes to his mathematical approach putting him at a massive advantage.

Who was the last successful republican nominee to fail to win a state in the south?

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

No successful republican nominee has failed to win MS.

MS has been the bellweather - choosing McCain in '08, and Ford in '76.

Ford won 2, and that's the worst performance of any Republican nominee, winning only MS and TN.

Even Ford won states like ND, KS and IA.
 

[ShadowOfTheWave]

No successful republican nominee has failed to win MS.

MS has been the bellweather - choosing McCain in '08, and Ford in '76.

Ford won 2, and that's the worst performance of any Republican nominee, winning only MS and TN.

Even Ford won states like ND, KS and IA.
 

Alright, you are either ignorant or being deliberately dishonest. There was NO CONTEST for MS in 2008. Romney was no longer in the race, Huckabee was no longer in the race. It was basically UNCONTESTED.

[fezzyfestoon]

In this race it's pretty clear Romney is the front-runner in all respects. In order for the right to lay claim to a split race, one would almost have to endorse the other sooner rather than later. ajb is right that in order to really be considered a legitimate nominee, Santorum will have to do extraordinarily well until the convention. Romney is also right when it comes to his mathematical approach putting him at a massive advantage.

Who was the last successful republican nominee to fail to win a state in the south?

That's very fun and interesting to us speculators, but the results of past nominating contests have absolutely no real bearing on what is happening right now.

[useful idiot]

If it goes to the convention that means Santorum will have won a significant number of states (places like NC, IN, WI, KY, PA, TX, WV, LA, possibly NJ and NM). To not have it go to him would hardly be fair.

But Romney would still have more delegates (including more pledged delegates) and more states won, even if Rick won the states you mention above. So how exactly would it be unfair to Rick?

To move into a 'fairness' thing, Rick is going to have to go in with more of something...more pledged delegates, more popular votes and/or more states won.

Right now the Santorum campaign is saying that in the above scenario, Gingrich delgates will flock to Rick along with a chunk of Romney delegates who they claim are going to be stealth conservatives who prefer Rick because they were picked at county and state conventions. I am not sure I buy this argument

Unfair if it goes to a candidate other than Romney or Santorum. I should have specified...

[Likely Voter]

Firstly Romney has won two states in the south: VA and FL (or was their a meeting I missed where they were kicked out?).

Secondly, so the GOP wants to make the case that MS is their true barometer? THat is the shining beacon of the party? Should they just skip the 2016+ primary battles and just leave it to MS to decide from now on? 

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

Alright, you are either ignorant or being deliberately dishonest. There was NO CONTEST for MS in 2008. Romney was no longer in the race, Huckabee was no longer in the race. It was basically UNCONTESTED.

And? The point is that MS has gone with every single eventual nominee, including Ford vs Reagan, throwing to Ford over Reagan and costing him the nomination.

Every republican nominee has had at least some significant southern support. Romney has none.

[useful idiot]

Firstly Romney has won two states in the south: VA and FL (or was their a meeting I missed where they were kicked out?).

Winning 59% in a head-to-head with Ron Paul isn't something he should be touting.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

That's very fun and interesting to us speculators, but the results of past nominating contests have absolutely no real bearing on what is happening right now.

Past results indicate that Romney is an extremely weak candidate for the republican nomination. Weaker than McCain, who was by no means a strong candidate.