OK, let's consider some hard numbers. Using the Atlas's numbers, these are the delegate totals I get for all the primaries up through Super Tuesday:
McCain 700
Huckabee 195
Romney 189
However, those are certainly underestimates, as it undercounts delegates in numerous states where the primary/caucus results aren't formally binding, but where the final delegate allocation usually follows what happened in the caucus. It allocates zero delegates for states such as Colorado, Minnesota, and Maine. Whereas news organizations like the AP were keeping a running tally of approximate delegate counts for states like that. If you used those approximate counts, Romney would be in better shape. Still, for now, let's be generous to McCain, and use the above numbers.
Now, let's change a few things, under the scenario where Huckabee wins SC and Romney wins FL:
Make the delegate split in SC 18/6 Huckabee/McCain rather than 18/6 McCain Huckabee
Take the 57 WTA delegates from FL away from McCain and give them to Romney
Take the 58 WTA delegates from MO away from McCain and give them to Romney
Assume Huckabee wins OK with a 32/6 delegate split over McCain rather than the other way around
Assume Romney wins CA. Rather than a delegate split of McCain 155 / Romney 15, make it Romney 105 / McCain 65
After doing all of that, you bring McCain's delegate tally down to 457, while Romney's is up to 394. So McCain's lead over Romney is already down to just 63 delegates, and I haven't even counted states like CO or MN yet, nor made any adjustments in other states, such as IL, where Romney could have won more delegates. So it's entirely possible that McCain could have ended Super Tuesday with a negligible/nonexistant delegate lead, and then, on Feb. 9th, Romney could have taken the lead, following a victory in the Washington caucuses, while Huckabee wins Kansas and Lousiana.
Missouri was never going Romney. He was in third. It would be better to flip it to Huckabee. Unfortunately thats the general story. A weaker McCain helps Huckabee more than Romney. Mainly though I just don't buy that Romney would have gained that much from a weaker McCain.
You can mix and match the numbers to get Romney to a plurality, but the real problem he had is that quite frankly he appealed to no one. He should have benefited from a system that made the NE and California more important than the South, but the fact was he was never going to win Connecticut, New York, and New jersey, and even a tie in California almost certainly would have seen McCain with a substantial delegate lead because of his strength in the Democratic areas of the state.
Even assuming by some miracle where McCain did everything wrong, Romney got to a plurality of the delegates he would still lose. Why? because no one liked him. As was shown in the debates everyone else ganged up on him and would have done so at the convention as well. And without his opponents dropping out(which they wouldn't since they hate him) he would only have around 36-37% of the delegates.
It would have been a disaster for all involved. What 2000 showed was that you could win the GOP nomination from Right by losing the NE and winning the south and west. What 2008 showed was that you could win from the left after the primary rules were changed to make it easier to do so. The third thing it showed was the same as Lamar Alexander's run in 1996; you can't win by being the least bad choice. Which was Romney's entire message.
