Who would win contested convention? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 01:16:31 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  Who would win contested convention? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Who would win contested convention?
#1
Romney
 
#2
Santorum
 
#3
Gingrich
 
#4
Paul
 
#5
Dark Horse (Palin, Bush, Christie, Paul, Daniels, etc.)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 59

Author Topic: Who would win contested convention?  (Read 5682 times)
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
« on: March 15, 2012, 10:13:57 AM »
« edited: March 15, 2012, 10:29:45 AM by 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)
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
« Reply #1 on: March 15, 2012, 10:17:02 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
« Reply #2 on: March 15, 2012, 10:19:51 AM »

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?
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
« Reply #3 on: March 15, 2012, 10:25:49 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
« Reply #4 on: March 15, 2012, 10:32:59 AM »

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!
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
« Reply #5 on: March 15, 2012, 10:43:58 AM »

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.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not true. Carter announced the 1980 Summer Olympics boycott in late January and took a huge hit over it.
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
« Reply #6 on: March 15, 2012, 10:49:18 AM »

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.
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
« Reply #7 on: March 15, 2012, 10:55:30 AM »

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.
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
« Reply #8 on: March 15, 2012, 06:27:24 PM »

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.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.037 seconds with 15 queries.