In the aftermath of Super Tuesday, it’s clear to almost everyone that Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul are all but mathematically prevented from achieving a first-ballot victory at the convention. The real question is whether Mitt Romney will win the 1,144 delegates necessary by the end of voting in June (Utah is the last state to vote, on June 26). On that question there’s a lot of informed discussion.
Josh Putnam, a political scientist at Davidson College, has a projection model for the primaries (he had a pretty good one in 2008 for the Democrats, which turned out to be quite accurate). Professor Putnam’s analysis suggests that Governor Romney is very likely to get an all-out majority. Others, like RealClearPolitics’s Sean Trende, lays out a scenario in which after the Utah race Romney still ends up with less than the number of delegates needed to win the nomination.
Just to make things interesting, let’s assume that Romney does fall short of the necessary 1,144 delegates. If that’s the case, Romney is still the favorite to win the nomination because the odds are very much in his favor that he’ll arrive in Tampa with a large enough lead on Rick Santorum (or anyone else) that after the first round of voting he’ll secure the delegates he needs.
Is it possible that between now and late June Santorum takes off like a rocket while Romney begins to collapses, with the result being that (a) Santorum ends up almost neck-and-neck with Romney in the delegate count and (b) GOP delegates, after the first round of voting, flock to Santorum because Romney is simply too weak?
Such a scenario is not impossible, but it seems to me that the odds of it occurring are quite small. It would require a dramatic shift in voting patterns that would be not only unusual but unprecedented. (Through the first two months and 23 contests, Romney has won 47 percent of the awarded delegates, Santorum 24 percent, and Gingrich 14 percent.) I have a friend who says that new paradigms are forming at a faster rate than we can do them analytical justice. He may be right and I may be wrong. The good news is that this matter will be resolved within a few months.
Folks may not be too happy with Romney, not being a Conservative – but he is a Capitalist by trade and by ideology.
Santorum and Newt have their pockets – but they have their RECORDS, too. And the longer this is drawn out, the more folks will learn more about their records, and the more they will show themselves for what they are.
And they will talk big, but the fact is that none of them are Capitalists by Ideology and the “capitalism” they practice is not Capitalism, it is Feudalism – prosperity by Govt Favoritism.
Every day goes by, more people learn about them, the more people will decide to NOT vote for those other three.
I’ve already seen that happening a lot.
The only way I can see Romney not getting the nomination is if Santorum quits and Gingrich takes off (meaning landslide primary wins). That would require an awful lot of very unlikely things all happening while Gingrich manages to not shoot himself in the foot until even those like Rose would begin to re-think her position on the non-Romneys (and what are the chances?). If Gingrich quits, though, I can't see Santorum ever inspiring a majority of the party, certainly not a landslide proportion. Both parties are coalitions. All the groups in the Republican Party. one can probably safely say, are all economic conservatives, but after that there are the compassionate conservatives, libertarians, those concerned with religion, social issues, the military, some Ron Paul isolationists, and even big government groups who just want to put their stamp on the federal government. The point is, a lot of the coalition is live and let live and they are turned off by the religion-social group when they stop talking about the values we can embrace and want to puke over things other people say, etc.
So sad, Keith, but I am one of those who witnessed the LIVE FEED of Newt laughing at Southern border Security for 45 AIR TIME MINUTES in Hannity's face while he hawked McCain Kennedy SHAMNESTY to the delirious DELIGHT of Alan Colmes. n45 AIR TIME MINUTES of BELLY LAUGHING – as he swore he was NOT on anyone's DIME as a paid consultant, just reporting the "PRAGMATIC" HONEST "BEST SOLUTION". nSounded much as he did on the debate with Hanoi John Kerry FOR GLOBAL WARMING as he hawked Hanoi John's pro-global warming book. nNOTHING he can do will change my mind about him. n nWhen you are ready, I can supply the tar and feathers and a long rail. n nTHEN we'll give Newt the reception he has EARNED. AND I KNOW about his tour of America 2009-2010 with Al Sharpton and with Arne the pedophilia promoting Duncan – promoting OBAMA EDUCATION POLICIES. n n So you can be sure the tar will be plenty hot.
So what you're saying is that before any Republican is going to be allowed to support Romney if he should, as is surely likely, get the nomination is if they tar and feather whatever candidate they supported in the primary season? I think (and, yes, I could be wrong and I often am) that articles like this one we've commented on and all of the articles speculating on the Republican race these days are due only to the Romney PACs running ads so hateful they've turned people away from Romney. How else could you explain Santorum's surge (or, as you despise Gingrich, how else do you explain Gingrich's brief surge)? I would like to think that whomever the candidate is (and the chances it will be Romney are probably 98%) will be able to unite the party.
They will unite the party the way McCain did, Dole, and Ford, also! Against them.
The longer time goes by, the more folks learn about the records of Santorum, Newt, and Paul, the less likely they are to vote for them. I see people drawn to them because of their TALK – but then put on the brakes and reverse FAST when they see their RECORDS. n nMitt is a Capitalist by trade and by Ideology. nThese other three are NOT. Any "capitalism" they practice is in fact FEUDALISM and not true Capitalism. They practice personal prosperity by means of Govt Favoritism. n nThe longer this process is drawn out, it may hurt Mitt plenty. After all, he is NOT a Conservative, either. nBut it will only mortally wound the other three, the more they are exposed to sunlight. I suspect some of them of preferring to lose the November Election to Dims and Obama rather than to Mitt Romney – you can see their self-importance in their Records.
Paul doesn't have a 'record' at all; you're being lied to. Romney's the one with the record of hypocrisy and flip-flopping. He'll say he's a capitalist one day and turn right around and say he never said that the next day. All in the name of appealing to whoever he's talking to at the time. Romney's and idiot, plain and simple.
You are ~cute~ but you cannot get THAT mess from MY post. n nAll I said is that when folks figure out what Newt is seriously all about, and are ready to tar and feather NEWT, for deeds he has already done to our detriment, then I'll bring tar and feathers to the party. FIGURATIVELY SPEAKING. I'll be glad in fact to settle for a trial for him with serious charges. n nBut if you succeed in getting the con artist, Newt Gingrich, nominated as the official GOP Candidate, I will be perfectly glad to vote for a write-in candidate of my own choice, who shall NOT be named Newt Gingrich. You can sink in the mire with him. I'll be delighted to watch the circus from afar. n nNewt and Santorum and Paul will unite the Party members – against them.
I believe we're failing to communicate, and I am not trying to antagonize you. You sound like you are a Romney supporter, rather than an Obama supporter (you say you'll write in somebody) — but before that you say that Romney will unite the party behind him as well as Dole, McCain, etc. … or corrected that to say that IF Romney doesn't get the nomination, 99.9% of the Republican Party will not vote for the Republican (or, at least a lot of people will stay home or follow you in writing someone's name in)? Are you perhaps an independent who doesn't care for Obama, but could vote for Romney?
The point I keep tyrying to make, to wrap this up, and not just to you, but elsewhere in other posts, is that 67% of Republicans have favored a different candidate than Romney (many candidates), but if Romney supporters want the rest of us, who's candidates have been eliminated, to support Romney, the worst way to go about it is to tell us those we've supported are criminals or insane or should be tarred and feathered if we can't get them put in prison to be the "boyfriends" they deserve to be, that as far as Romney's supporters are concerned Obama can be elected before any evil Republican.
You are wrong about 67% of the Republicans being against Romney as evidenced by the fact that Santorum + Newt + Paul have together fallen FAR SHORT of the numbers that Romney has gathered. n nNot surprising. Vote as you will – If you succeed, you will certainly have earned them. n nYou and Newt, Santorum, and Paul deserve eachother. Looks like you are having great fun deliberately perverting everything I said..
We are utterly failing to communicate. I think you are further away from what I said than ever. Since it was worse the second time than the first, I won't try to correct you again. n nI doubt it will do any good to again inform you that I never said what you claim I said. I assume you are having a great joke, like an "opposite" day or something of the sort. n nI am not what is referred to as an Independent – I would NEVER vote for any Democrat, I consider Obama one of the worst human beings on the planet, and have no better opinion of the entire Democrat party AND RINOS. n nNothing you said trying to "grasp" my meaning is at all related to my opinions in the least.
Add another 18 delegates to Romney's total … he swept Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands caucuses. It's amazing what organization and an economic message can do …
2012 Republican Delegate current total count tonight listed by RealClearPolitics: n nRomney: 446 nSantorum: 199 nGingrich: 117 nPaul: 61