Who would win contested convention?

[Likely Voter]

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?)

[Likely Voter]

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

[Likely Voter]

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

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.

[Likely Voter]

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? 

[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.

[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.

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 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.

[Likely Voter]

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.

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?