Who would win contested convention?

[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.

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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...

[useful idiot]

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.

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

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...