Who would win contested convention?

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

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?

I suppose you think California would be a better choice?

Look, I know it's hard to believe but yes, MS is an important state in the Republican nomination. I'm sorry it's hard for you to understand but yes, people actually like the folks in the South and consider them to be good people. 

[Likely Voter]

So some states should count more than others? Is that the logic?

Well in that case, the Romney again should come out on top because he keeps winning in the swing states like OH and FL. And his win in traditional dem states shows he has more appeal for a general election.

but, I think the whole notion that some state wins should be seen as more important that others is silly.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

but, I think the whole notion that some state wins should be seen as more important that others is silly.

Coming from a Californian, this is ludicrious. At least we Texans are honest that Texas is more important than the lesser states, like California.
 

[Chareth Cutestory]

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.

I'm not getting your point. I don't choose the nominee, you don't need to campaign against Romney to me.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

I'm not getting your point. I don't choose the nominee, you don't need to campaign against Romney to me.

Republican nominees to the presidency have certain characteristics in common.

Some, like Bush Jr, go on to win all or almost all the states in the union.

The weakest successful nominee to the presidency for the republican party, is Gerald Ford.

What Ford + McCain share, is a weakness in the south. Strong republican nominees sweep the south. Weak ones lose states.

Halfway through the campaign - Romney being up 15-10 is about the same as where Ford was up on Reagan. This campaign is actually pretty similar to that one, of all the Republican nominations.

This isn't a good sign for Romney.

[ajb]

So some states should count more than others? Is that the logic?

Well in that case, the Romney again should come out on top because he keeps winning in the swing states like OH and FL. And his win in traditional dem states shows he has more appeal for a general election.

but, I think the whole notion that some state wins should be seen as more important that others is silly.

Anyone else having flashbacks to the 2008 Democratic primary about now? Those good old days when the Clinton campaign scoffed at Obama victories in Nebraska and such, saying he'd never win there in the general, and that her victories in OH and PA proved that she could win the swing states?

[izixs]

So some states should count more than others? Is that the logic?

Well in that case, the Romney again should come out on top because he keeps winning in the swing states like OH and FL. And his win in traditional dem states shows he has more appeal for a general election.

but, I think the whole notion that some state wins should be seen as more important that others is silly.

Anyone else having flashbacks to the 2008 Democratic primary about now? Those good old days when the Clinton campaign scoffed at Obama victories in Nebraska and such, saying he'd never win there in the general, and that her victories in OH and PA proved that she could win the swing states?

Yes.

[Bacon King]

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.
 

Every Republican nominee has also always won the South Carolina primary, and that's actually slightly relevant because South Carolina always votes at the beginning of the contest, unlike Mississippi which traditionally voted very late when everyone except the nominee had already dropped out.

Ultimately, trends like these only exist until they're broken and you shouldn't put any stock in them. Remember, "as goes Maine, so goes the nation" used to actually be a thing until 1932.

[Politico]

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?)

Paul releases his delegates to Romney. Team Romney does whatever it takes to make it happen (even if it means giving Rand Paul the veep slot)

[Politico]

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?

It won't be Mitt Romney. He's already won Florida and Virginia.

[Politico]

So some states should count more than others? Is that the logic?

Well in that case, the Romney again should come out on top because he keeps winning in the swing states like OH and FL. And his win in traditional dem states shows he has more appeal for a general election.

but, I think the whole notion that some state wins should be seen as more important that others is silly.

Don't be ridiculous. The winner of the GOP nomination should only be concerned with running up their totals in places like Mississippi and Alabama, not being competitive in places like Florida and Ohio. You don't really think that Republicans want to win the Electoral College in November, do you?

[True Federalist]

So some states should count more than others? Is that the logic?

Well in that case, the Romney again should come out on top because he keeps winning in the swing states like OH and FL. And his win in traditional dem states shows he has more appeal for a general election.

Sorry.  But the idea that primary results between the candidates of one party can be taken as indicative of how they will perform in the general election is not proven, as Senators-unelect Miller, Fiorina, Buck, O'Donnel, and Angle can all point out.

[Politico]

I'm not getting your point. I don't choose the nominee, you don't need to campaign against Romney to me.

Republican nominees to the presidency have certain characteristics in common.

Some, like Bush Jr, go on to win all or almost all the states in the union.

The weakest successful nominee to the presidency for the republican party, is Gerald Ford.

What Ford + McCain share, is a weakness in the south. Strong republican nominees sweep the south. Weak ones lose states.

Halfway through the campaign - Romney being up 15-10 is about the same as where Ford was up on Reagan. This campaign is actually pretty similar to that one, of all the Republican nominations.

This isn't a good sign for Romney.

I missed the memo showing that Obama is going to win states in the Deep South if Romney is the nominee. Can somebody grab that for me?

Stick Bob McDonnell on the ticket, and Virginia/North Carolina are off the table. Furthermore, Florida is going to be HOTLY contested more than any other state.

Romney needs to be competitive in the southwest (Nevada/New Mexico), Ohio, Florida and New Hampshire. He has delivered in these places. Throw in Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin and Michigan, maybe even Maine/Washington/Oregon if things get really competitive, and Romney is looking good.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

Every Republican nominee has also always won the South Carolina primary

Reagan won South Carolina in '76. Ford did not.

Ultimately, trends like these only exist until they're broken and you shouldn't put any stock in them. Remember, "as goes Maine, so goes the nation" used to actually be a thing until 1932.

I think we can pretty much determine that Romney is a terrible candidate at this point in the race.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

I missed the memo showing that Obama is going to win states in the Deep South if Romney is the nominee. Can somebody grab that for me?

Romney will get swept in the south vs Obama.

[Politico]

I think we can pretty much determine that Romney is a terrible candidate at this point in the race.

Really? Because Romney is polling better against Obama than Reagan polled against Carter in March 1980. Has the objective changed from being "defeat Obama"?

Use the (market) force(s), Obi-Wan!

[Secretary of Labor Earthling]

I think we can pretty much determine that Romney is a terrible candidate at this point in the race.

Really? Because Romney is polling better against Obama than Reagan polled against Carter in March 1980. Has the objective changed from being "defeat Obama"?

Use the (market) force(s), Obi-Wan!

And Reagan was the superior candidate against Carter. Romney won't be against Obama. Carter was in a better position in early 1980 than Obama is right now, and still Romney can't really get on top.

[Politico]

I think we can pretty much determine that Romney is a terrible candidate at this point in the race.

Really? Because Romney is polling better against Obama than Reagan polled against Carter in March 1980. Has the objective changed from being "defeat Obama"?

Use the (market) force(s), Obi-Wan!

And Reagan was the superior candidate against Carter. Romney won't be against Obama.

One, Romney is more ruthless than Obama. Two, people are growing increasingly tired of Obama just like they were tired of Carter. Three, John Kerry nearly beat George W. Bush, a far more "likeable" person than Kerry, in the middle of a war with unemployment below 5% and gas at about $2/gallon. Why do I bring this up? Because it was the last race involving an incumbent. It does not take a likeable, charismatic politician to defeat a likeable incumbent in an environment of malaise.

Carter was in a better position in early 1980 than Obama is right now, and still Romney can't really get on top.

Not true. Carter announced the 1980 Summer Olympics boycott in late January and took a huge hit over it.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Stick Bob McDonnell on the ticket, and Virginia/North Carolina are off the table.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. THE NEIGHBORING STAGE ADVANTAGE TALK IS BACK.

Seriously why would people in NC care about McDonnell at all?

[Politico]

Stick Bob McDonnell on the ticket, and Virginia/North Carolina are off the table.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. THE NEIGHBORING STAGE ADVANTAGE TALK IS BACK.

Seriously why would people in NC care about McDonnell at all?

id. McDonnell is one of them. Obama, Biden and Romney are not, just like McCain and Palin before them.

[So the Heroes Fall]

How many people outside of Virginia even know who he is?

And for that matter how many people base their vote primarily on the proximity of the VP candidate's state to their home state, or who the VP candidate is at all?

[Politico]

How many people outside of Virginia even know who he is?

And for that matter how many people base their vote primarily on the proximity of the VP candidate's state to their home state, or who the VP candidate is at all?

Trust me, being the only southerner out of the four candidates for president/vice-president is all it is going to take. He'll do a tour of the state, raise his awareness, and the state will be off the table by convention time. Virginia/North Carolina are going to be off the table. Romney's people know he desperately needs a southerner as his running mate, and Bob's probably got the job.

[a Person]

How many people outside of Virginia even know who he is?

And for that matter how many people base their vote primarily on the proximity of the VP candidate's state to their home state, or who the VP candidate is at all?

Trust me, being the only southerner out of the four candidates for president/vice-president is all it is going to take.

1992: Bill Clinton and Al Gore
1996: Bill Clinton and Al Gore
2000: Al Gore
2004: John Edwards

Your argument is invalid.

[useful idiot]

I think we can pretty much determine that Romney is a terrible candidate at this point in the race.

Really? Because Romney is polling better against Obama than Reagan polled against Carter in March 1980. Has the objective changed from being "defeat Obama"?

Use the (market) force(s), Obi-Wan!

The situations in 1980 and 2012 are similar how? Carter's approvals were in the toilet, the only reason Reagan wasn't polling well was because independents were scared of the guy. Obama's approvals are fairly solid still, and the reason Romney polls better against him is because he's still largely an unknown quantity to independents. Romney isn't Reagan, he's not going to come out of the primaries and dazzle everyone with his communication skills. He's not going to beat Obama in a debate, like Reagan did with Carter. In an environment like this the fact that he's not destroying Obama is a pretty good indicator of both the president's personal popularity and Romney's failure to distinguish himself at this point. In the minds of the public he's still "Generic R," and I can guarantee you that once they see the real Romney he's going to be a helluva lot less popular than "Generic R."

Barring another major downturn or military fiasco, Obama is in all probability going to get his second term. The question for Republicans is this: are they going to go with the pandering weasel that they dislike in the hopes of an unlikely victory, or are they going to go with someone who will give voters a contrast and stand up for principles? Obviously I'm not saying Santorum has a much better chance at beating Obama, although I think we'd all be surprised at how well he'd do and, like Romney, he still has a chance.

If your primary objective is beating the other guy, then you've already lost. The American people have almost always chosen strength and confidence over ideology. Santorum has that, Romney has neither. The idiots on talk radio and FOX are always whining about how they nominate guys like Dole and McCain and lose. Well here's their chance. Otherwise they're going to wake up on November 7th and say the same thing they always do. Won't it be better for everyone to wake up on November 7th and say "Hey, we had a debate about ideas between two very different visions of where our country should go, both candidates pleaded their case, and the people decided which vision they identified with." I think that the latter would ultimately be more satisfying, whoever wins...

[Secretary of Labor Earthling]

I wanted to post a reply to your post, Politico, but Useful Idiot gave you my points already.

Romney is no Reagan, accept that. Better said, Obama has more of Reagan's qualities than Romney has. Romney is just a plain, boring guy.

Yes, in my opinion he can win in November, but most likely, he won't.