Talk Elections

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?)

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

^ Yep.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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? 

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.

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

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 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. 

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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)

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

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?

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.

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.

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


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

Romney will get swept in the south vs Obama.

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.

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.


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

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.

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.

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

Your argument is invalid.

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...

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.

This assumes the Paul delegates would do as told. The Paul delegates didn't go through the process to cut a deal to have Rand as VP. They went through the process to smoke dope in public, and host of other such "causes." If Romney doesn't come through for the dope-smokers then they might revolt.

R3volution <==> Establishment

The same man who would win an uncontested convention.

 I was only making the straw man argument of how two can play the game of "my states are better than your states"...you cut off my next line pointing out how the whole notion is sillly.

so yes i agree.


In the end I think that whoever goes in with a plurality will win. I just dont see how Santorum can make the case that his votes are more significant. It will get trickier if Santorum+Gingrich>Romney and if Gingrich endorses Santorum.

But in the end I think that Santorum has to make his goal to not just force a contested convention but to also come close to matching Romney's pledged delegates. And that is a much harder thing to do.

Romney would easily win a contested convention, especially one where he already has 47% of delegates. The entire GOP establishment would mobilize the troops for him, making whatever deals necessary.

Here's another fact, only one person has ever won the presidency losing > 10 states along the way in the primary, and he only did so by defeating another person who also lost > 10 states.

Face it, Romney's going to get blown out in the general.

The obvious difference between these southerners and McDonnell: Bob is a Republican.

That's an interesting trivia question.

Who was the only Southern vice president republican nominee?

Rick will win WI and it's about 50/50 for IL.

Not if he's not the nominee.

Chris Christie

Here are some real facts: Well there have only been 10 elections in the modern primary era. Yet in that time 3 nominees with 11+ loses have won.

And given that Santorum will almost certainly have more losses than Romney, what is your point?

I would rather that Palin enter at the convention and be our nominee than the lot we have.  She's the only one that discusses the real issues that can defeat the president:

Gas Prices
Food Prices (which is an issue none of our candidates have even mentioned)
Hatred of the Fed
Obamacare
Jobs

Combined with the enthusiasm she produces, she would be an excellent candidate.  For example, I know two mainline democrats who voted for Obama in 2008.  They said that if Palin ran, they would vote for her.  Just sayin...

()

Mitt Romney: "Hey, Ron Paul, want to write the platform? I'll let you put everything you want in there except for that whacky foreign policy and drug stuff! And you can speak in front of the convention about it, too! And I'll tell you what. All you have to do is get your delegates to vote for me. And hey, if Christie still thinks he's too fat to campaign, I promise you that I'll even think about putting Rand on the ticket with me!"

*Ron Paul giggles like a school girl and jumps with joy*

()

(Seriously, that's probably all it would take for Romney to win the nomination if he's on the cusp of a majority heading into Tampa.)

you're assuming the Paultarded ninjas would bow that easily

It ultimately depends on how many of them actually make it through the various caucuses and state conventions to get to Tampa. If they're few in number, they'll be easy to corral and could probably be talked in to accepting Platform Committee spots as a compromise if they see they're outnumbered badly. You're right though that all bets are off if a ton of them do manage to make it.

That Romney is a terrible candidate?

He's also not really a Southerner. He's a Catholic who was born in Philadelphia and grew up in the DC burbs. And his popularity within VA is based on his moderation, if anything. Not sure if that's what Romney wants...

Your argument was that being the only Southerner on the ticket would win the South over.

I assume Texas doesn't count as the South (GHWBush/Cheney), right?


From a poll of SC Republicans:
(link) (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/01/gingrich-leads-1st-night-of-sc-tracking.html#more)

Sarah Palin is totally unelectable.