Just a reminder: Romney won the delegate haul last night

posted at 1:55 pm on March 14, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

The first hint that the night might not go Mitt Romney’s way was his decision not to have a “victory” party at all, which I first heard on the Hugh Hewitt show.  As I said at the time, that’s an odd decision, considering the free media coverage one gets from the inevitable candidate speech.  Perhaps that should have tipped us off that the early exit polls had missed the mark, and that the Romney campaign knew full well they would come in third in both Mississippi and Alabama.

However, despite the disappointing results in the two southern states, Romney ended up winning the night anyway — at least in delegates.  Aaron Blake counts up the haul, including the delegate allocations from Hawaii and American Samoa:

The most recent projections from AP show Rick Santorum took 31 delegates from Alabama and Mississippi, while Newt Gingrich took 24 delegates and Romney got 23.

But this morning, Romney was projected to win all nine delegates from American Samoa’s caucuses, and he also won the Hawaii caucuses by a large margin.

AP projections show Romney beat Santorum 18 delegates to four in those jurisdictions.

So, as of this morning, Romney has won 41 delegates from Tuesday’s contests, compared to 35 for Santorum, thereby expanding Romney’s delegate lead. (Gingrich is projected to have won 24 delegates.)

According to the WaPo count after last night’s results, Romney leads in delegates over Santorum, 494-251, with Gingrich trailing badly at 131.  It doesn’t extend the delegate lead by much, but it kept either Gingrich or Santorum from catching up to Romney, too.

Rich Lowry questions the conventional wisdom from last night’s spot analysis that the night was especially bad for Romney even apart from the actual delegate haul:

There’s a lot of chatter about how the Romney campaign needs a shake up. But did anyone expect him to do any better than somewhere around 30 percent in Alabama and Mississippi? The states are chock-full of the kind of voters he just isn’t going to reach in these primaries, and the only way he was going to win was if he got lucky and the anti-Romney vote broke exactly the right way.  I’ve been underwhelmed by Romney victories and in this case, I’m underwhelmed by Romney defeats.

The chatter comes from two points.  First, polls had him doing better than he eventually did in both states, especially Mississippi, and that makes it look like Romney can’t close the deal with conservative-state voters.  Second, the expectation was that Santorum and Gingrich would have equal strength in these two states, which could have allowed Romney to take Mississippi. That didn’t happen, which means that Santorum has eclipsed Gingrich as the conservative alternative.  That’s not good news for Romney or Gingrich.

The night wasn’t all bad news for Romney, by any means, but it’s overstating the case to call last night a Romney victory.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Math is soooo hard, they don’t have to, they just have to pull enough between the two of them to prevent Mitt from reaching 1144, and they won’t have any difficulty doing that.

SWalker

Actually, they will. You can check out the scenarios here. But Mitt only needs 1/4th of the delegates in the south. Only 40% of the delegates from the midwest. Mind you that does not mean 40% or 25% of the states, just the delegates. Then he has to get above 50% in the west and north east. Thats it.

Zaggs on March 14, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Most likely scenario is that Ron Paul will release his delegates to Mitt; he cannot stand Rick.

Exactly. I personally think that if Romney came in just short of a majority, there’s enough wiggle room with unbound and super delegates that giving the nomination to the guy that came in with the most delegates is a no brainer. Are they really going to give the nomination to a guy that comes in with a third less delegates and millions less in total votes? You’re talking about the destruction of a political party.

But if Romney was absolutely forced to make a deal with another candidate for their delegates, he will take his chances with Ron/Rand Paul before either Newt or Santorum.

BradTank on March 14, 2012 at 2:29 PM

l4l, you mooch the taxpayers and your employer. How does it feel to be such a bloodsucker?

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Let’s say Romney makes it’s too 1,050. Do people really think he won’t get the nomination in a brokered convention?

Most likely scenario is that Ron Paul will release his delegates to Mitt; he cannot stand Rick.
Ron Paul does NOT want to go 3rd party; he wants to turn his organization over to Senator Rand Paul. He also doesn’t want to do anything to jeopardize his son’s career by bolting from the party.
matthew8787 on March 14, 2012 at 2:22 PM

That also makes sense ideologically. Libertarians aren’t known for getting all worked up over contraceptives & Satan and Newt just has no real world experience. It doesn’t help their respective cases that both the other not-Mitts are longtime beltway insiders who look to govt to provide big solutions.

whatcat on March 14, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Good news/bad news – While Romney has the lead, finishing second is about to not pay off anymore.

Steve Eggleston on March 14, 2012 at 2:30 PM

You just wrote a perfect ad, for Axelrod/Obama.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Didn’t Obama outspend McCain 5 to 1. He only won with 6% of the vote.

rubberneck on March 14, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Romney = 494
Santorum = 251
Gingrich = 131

Santorum + Gingrich = 382 closer…
but still well behind. Add in Paul’s and it’s probably about neck-n-neck for Romney vs. not Romney. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the “next in line”. Romney may be winning technically, but he is not generating any enthusiasm except among a few blog posters.

Not sure how that says “Victory!”. Being “okay” isn’t going to beat President Cool. Fortunately, it isn’t going to just be about the GOP nominee, it will also be about Obama and his record. The Obama campaign will, of course, bring out all the rock star treatment for him (oooh, look at him, he is just so, oh gosh, so awesome!) and will savage any GOP candidate. They will tie any candidate to those “extremists” like Rush or Sarah (or Hannity or Levin or Fox News …) and try to scare all the independents. Countering that is going to take more than “okay” and whoever becomes the nominee better be ready. I’m not seeing it yet.

BillyWilly on March 14, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Less than 4,000 people voted in Hawaii caucus. Only 70(!) people voted in American Samoa. Meaningless.

Norwegian on March 14, 2012 at 2:04 PM

70 people = 9 delegates? WTH is wrong with this system?

Lost in Jersey on March 14, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Romney has more delegates than the other 3 candidates combined, extends his delegate lead last night and is still somehow having a bad night… umm not really. Newt and Rick supporters would have us believe that the delegate count does not matter, but the entire premise of their campaign right now is to try and keep Romney’s delegate count below the majority threshold. You can’t have it both ways.

I expected Romney to get creamed last night despite the polls, which have been pretty terrible this primary season predicting outcomes.

luckedout26 on March 14, 2012 at 2:31 PM

ITguy on March 14, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Midwesterner on March 14, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Just thinking out loud here. Newt or Sandy can come to Romney and say pick me as Veep and you have 1144.

I don’t know, this stuff could already be happening…we would be having a internal brokered “election” between these four guys.

Oil Can on March 14, 2012 at 2:31 PM

After all, how are we supposed to beat Obamacare in the general if we can’t even beat Romneycare in our own primary?

Citizen-003528 on March 14, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Keep the focus on the big picture-jobs, energy, deficit. Obamacare is terrible and we need to get the Republican elected to get it repealed, but that as a single issue will not win the election.

JOBS, ENERGY, DEFICIT.

Anyone but Obama.

talkingpoints on March 14, 2012 at 2:31 PM

And then what’s the plan?

rhombus on March 14, 2012 at 2:27 PM

A brutal knockdown drag-out brawl in the convention.

SWalker on March 14, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Romney = 494
Santorum = 251
Gingrich = 131

Santorum + Gingrich = 382 closer…
but still well behind. Add in Paul’s and it’s probably about neck-n-neck for Romney vs. not Romney.

BillyWilly

As others have said, Paul won’t give his delegates to the notRomneys as he himself has not run a notRomney campaign, and they like each other while Paul seems to severely dislike Santorum.

Zaggs on March 14, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Ron Paul will be king maker and Santorum, Gingrich, Palin, and Bush supporters will go absolutely nuts!

Midwesterner on March 14, 2012 at 2:26 PM

This could make the entire thing better, actually…

If RP holds out that he will support whoever will abolish the Fed as his price to the nomination, then this will fulfill one of his life’s ambitions. Would he do that? Beats the hell outta me… but if he does hold that as the asking price would Mitt abide by it? Would Santorum?

Yet it would keep the Paulians on-board and actually put a massive small government plank into the nominee’s agenda. Perhaps against their better feelings, but if they say they will run on it they had better mean it, no?

ajacksonian on March 14, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Only state I will give you guys in November is Nevada and probably Colorado because of the Mormons. Everywhere else he would be destroyed.

Lets see. In the red states it will be Romney(mormon) versus Obama(islamic). gee who will the red states vote for.

gerrym51 on March 14, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Mitt is on Fox News now…
He’s got dried grits on his tie…/

d1carter on March 14, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Romney may be winning technically
BillyWilly on March 14, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Meh. Highly preferable to losing technically.

whatcat on March 14, 2012 at 2:34 PM

So now that we’re all knee-deep into it, is there anyone who likes the proportional distribution of delegates? Who has this helped?

rhombus on March 14, 2012 at 2:34 PM

As others have said, Paul won’t give his delegates to the notRomneys as he himself has not run a notRomney campaign, and they like each other while Paul seems to severely dislike Santorum.

Zaggs on March 14, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Don’t fool yourself, Paul isn’t giving his delegates to anyone.

SWalker on March 14, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Is that Chevy Chase????

Rohall1215 on March 14, 2012 at 2:37 PM

You want a different outcome? Convince Newt to drop out… Can’t? Then you get what you get…

Khun Joe on March 14, 2012 at 2:29 PM

+100

conservative tarheel on March 14, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Lets see. In the red states it will be Romney(mormon) versus Obama(islamic). gee who will the red states vote for.

gerrym51 on March 14, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Well for those who oppose Obama because he is not a “christian” it will be interesting to see if they vote for Romney…

liberal4life on March 14, 2012 at 2:37 PM

So now that we’re all knee-deep into it, is there anyone who likes the proportional distribution of delegates? Who has this helped?

I’m torn on this. On paper it seems like a fairer system.In reality i’m not sure it’s a good system.

gerrym51 on March 14, 2012 at 2:38 PM

And Drudge was ‘fun’ to watch. He declared Mitt the winne, top/center, with only 1% of the results in, then he had to eat crow.

Must be tough to have one’s cojones held tight by Coultergeist, poor guy. He really doesn’t care who is president.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Go to this link and see how the Drudge front page changed over time…

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2012/03/14/

His pictures of Romney are all upbeat. (“ROMNEY SET FOR MISSISSIPPI WIN”, etc.)

His pictures and captions of Santorum are mocking, such as a Santorum “thumbs up” picture with the caption “MISSISSIPPI 3-WAY!”

ITguy on March 14, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Just thinking out loud here. Newt or Sandy can come to Romney and say pick me as Veep and you have 1144.

I don’t know, this stuff could already be happening…we would be having a internal brokered “election” between these four guys.

Oil Can

Romney would probably say the Mass rich equivalent of “bitch, please” to that idea. It wouldn’t really grow his following in the general against Obama. If socons want to stay home, so be it. But Romney is going to pick someone to expand his base.

Zaggs on March 14, 2012 at 2:38 PM

So, the meme today, is to He@@ with the South and the Conservative Base. They’re going to have to vote for Mitt in the General Election, anyway.

Countin’ chickens…before they come home to roost.

kingsjester on March 14, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Last night was not a win for Romney. He spent massive amounts of money to come in third…in the two most important races of the night.
–thmsmgnm on March 14, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Between Mississippi and Alabama, the Romney campaign and the pro-Romney super PAC spent about $2.5 million. Santorum and Gingrich, with their super PAC’s, spent about $1.6 million. In other words, the spending differential was not all that significant. Certainly not “10-to-1″ as Santorum frequently and disingenuously claims. It seems to me that to slightly outspend your opponents and come in a close third in a region of the country that favors the other two candidates for demographic and or geographic regions is not that bad a performance overall.

HTL on March 14, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Well for those who oppose Obama because he is not a “christian” it will be interesting to see if they vote for Romney…

I think you answered your own question

gerrym51 on March 14, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Narrative:  Romney is winning because he is outspending his opponents, but
he can’t outspend Obama.

Questioning clumsy reasoning:  If Santorum and Gingrich can’t beat a “weak
RINO” because they are being outspent, how are they going to defeat a
strong liberal who has even more money?

Narrative: Romney wins states and delegates, but can not close the deal
with conservatives.

Questioning clumsy reasoning:  Gingrich and Santorum can not win as many
states or delegates, and they turn off moderates, but yet they are the
stronger candidates?

Narrative: Romney will fall short of delegates and convention conservatives
will turned to the “conservative” Rick Santorum because they will never
elect a RINO wearing Mittens.

Questioning clumsy reasoning: Why would delegates vote for someone who had
a weaker campaign, a weaker strategy, could not win as many states, and
could not win as many delegates?

Really people, quit twisting yourselves into knots trying to think of a way
to get the Whinny Warrior Extraordinaire to win.  He has fought the good
fight (albeit in a very whinny manner), but his campaign could not even get
him in all states or register all delegates.  Santorum is not the guy we
want to nominate, no matter how much we agree with his policies.  Reagan
said that if a person agrees with you most of the time, he is an ally not
an enemy.  Quit trying to convince yourselves that Romney = Obama… it is
not even close to being true.

wcwindbag on March 14, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Paul won’t give his delegates to the notRomneys as he himself has not run a notRomney campaign, and they like each other while Paul seems to severely dislike Santorum.

Zaggs on March 14, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Bottom line for Paul, who is he going to trust? Someone who spent most of his life in business or someone who spent most of his life in Government (much like himself, I might add).

rhombus on March 14, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Well for those who oppose Obama because he is not a “christian” it will be interesting to see if they vote for Romney…

liberal4life on March 14, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Who, as a known Mormon, is Christian by definition.

You know, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Red Cloud on March 14, 2012 at 2:40 PM

So, the meme today, is to He@@ with the South and the Conservative Base. They’re going to have to vote for Mitt in the General Election, anyway.

Countin’ chickens…before they come home to roost.

kingsjester on March 14, 2012 at 2:39 PM

So, you’re saying these base conservatives will vote for Obama instead? Help me out here.

Red Cloud on March 14, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Don’t fool yourself, Paul isn’t giving his delegates to anyone.

SWalker

Yes, you are most likely right. Just if he HAD to give them up my money says Romney.

Zaggs on March 14, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Keep the focus on the big picture-jobs, energy, deficit. Obamacare is terrible and we need to get the Republican elected to get it repealed, but that as a single issue will not win the election.

JOBS, ENERGY, DEFICIT.

That would be a solid strategy for a Republican. I still don’t see Romney pulling it off. Didn’t work for Dole or McCain.

It’s not about the talking points. It’s about the candidate, and Romney is a terrible candidate. He’s a terrible campaigner. He’s a proven loser as a politician. We can and must do better.

Citizen-003528 on March 14, 2012 at 2:42 PM

So, you’re saying these base conservatives will vote for Obama instead? Help me out here.

Red Cloud

or stay home. Pretty sure they threatened the same thing with McCain.

Zaggs on March 14, 2012 at 2:42 PM

The amount of people voting in the primaries compared to 4 years ago is pathetic.

liberal4life on March 14, 2012 at 2:28 PM

You need to go get the new Democratic talking points. This one is absolutely wrong. (But that wouldn’t be the first time liberals use “made up” talking points to fit their narative.)

Midwesterner on March 14, 2012 at 2:43 PM

What can Mitt do as POTUS to undo ObamaCare?

d1carter on March 14, 2012 at 2:43 PM

A republican candidate who can’t win the South.

liberal4life on March 14, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Newt.

hanzblinx on March 14, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Don’t fool yourself, Paul isn’t giving his delegates to anyone.
SWalker on March 14, 2012 at 2:37 PM

When all is said and done, all the candidates who don’t have a chance at getting the nomination get behind the nominee presumptive. The candidate is confirmed by “acclamation” at the convention and even his former frenemies are saying what a great candidate he is.

That being said, Paul has many good points to integrate into the platform and although his numbers haven’t been consistently huge, they have been consistent.

whatcat on March 14, 2012 at 2:44 PM

If Romney “can’t close the deal” what does that say about the candidates that are losing to him?

BradTank on March 14, 2012 at 2:06 PM

It says two candidates are splitting the “anybody but Romney” vote. Romney loses head to head against either of the other two. It’s sickening that he (and the republican establishment) gets to pretend that he’s the frontrunner when it’s obvious that the base (and conservatives in particular) doesn’t want him.

Not that the republican establishment cares (because they’d rather lose the election than lose control of the process) but the real question is how many conservatives will stay home with Romney as the nominee. Or, if you rather, how many independant votes are gained by Romney (vs Santurom or Gingrich) and will they be enough to offset the loss of conservatives (like myself) who will stay home rather than vote for Romney – who cannot be trusted.

My guess is that independants that would vote for Romney over Santorum or Gingrich will vote for Obama in the general anyway. Why wouldn’t you? Is there that much difference in what they’d do?

noeastern on March 14, 2012 at 2:44 PM

or stay home. Pretty sure they threatened the same thing with McCain.

Zaggs on March 14, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Troof. I recall the apoplexy with which base conservatives said they’d stay home, and it may have helped deliver VA, NC, and IN.

May have. All of those states voted for McCain in the primaries. McCain also won Mississippi.

McCain also won every single state that voted for Huckabee, who was supposed to be the designated conservative in that race (other than Romney, of course).

Red Cloud on March 14, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Ummmm…he won more delagates so it was a victory.

I think this is good for the party and for Romney. It allows us to fight it out and then come together in the end. It makes Romney go out and use resources on people he might not have needed before.ie he has to meet the people that probably won’t vote for him in the primary.

Sanitarium, is good for something…who knew.

tomas on March 14, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Who cares? There are a lot of RINOS who love Mitt . . . .DUMP HIM . . .he’s worthless!!!

Pragmatic on March 14, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Nate Silver has discussed in detail the problems of polling in the Deep South. And just your average, everyday Presidential approval rating that pollsters have been doing for decades shows Obama at either 41 or 50, depending on which poll you use.

So you have a few polls taken at various days and intervals that basically show very tight races in both Alabama and Mississippi (except for that one Rasmussen survey, was there another poll which showed Romney up significantly in MS?), and then, guess what, you have very tight finishes and that’s all of a sudden a “defeat” for Romney for not “closing the deal.”

bobs1196 on March 14, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Red Cloud on March 14, 2012 at 2:45 PM

I take that back, McCain lost Iowa. But he won the seven other states Huckabee won.

Red Cloud on March 14, 2012 at 2:47 PM

What can Mitt do as POTUS to undo ObamaCare?

d1carte

Something akin to “Massachusetts….you get a waiver, Texas….you get a waiver….everyone gets a waiver!!”. or he could go Obama and just regulate it out.

Zaggs on March 14, 2012 at 2:47 PM

We can and must do better.

Citizen-003528 on March 14, 2012 at 2:42 PM

You have your own talking points but the bottom line is, who have you got? The problem in 2008 wasn’t McCain, it was the conservatives who couldn’t beat McCan. They came up with bupkiss for candidates. None of them panned out. Fred Thompson could barely stay awake through the debates and now he’s selling reverse mortgages. Now you still want to do better? Who have you got? Candidates that can’t beat another dreaded RINO (yawn) deja vu all over again.

rhombus on March 14, 2012 at 2:47 PM

The amount of people voting in the primaries compared to 4 years ago is pathetic.
liberal4life on March 14, 2012 at 2:28 PM

You need to go get the new Democratic talking points. This one is absolutely wrong. (But that wouldn’t be the first time liberals use “made up” talking points to fit their narative.)
Midwesterner on March 14, 2012 at 2:43 PM

I think what it is trying to say is that it is disappointed by the failure of the Kos-Moore Chaos Op to turn out voters.

whatcat on March 14, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Well for those who oppose Obama because he is not a “christian” it will be interesting to see if they vote for Romney…

liberal4life on March 14, 2012 at 2:37 PM
Who, as a known Mormon, is Christian by definition.

You know, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Red Cloud on March 14, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Mormons are not Christians . . .(e.g., just because Romney calls himself a Republican, does NOT make is so). Romney is a Democrat! You can call yourself whatever you want . . .it’s your ACTIONS that make the difference.

DUMP MITT NOW!

Pragmatic on March 14, 2012 at 2:49 PM

What can Mitt do as POTUS to undo ObamaCare?
d1carte

Something akin to “Massachusetts….you get a waiver, Texas….you get a waiver….everyone gets a waiver!!”. or he could go Obama and just regulate it out.
Zaggs on March 14, 2012 at 2:47 PM

To what’s even left standing after the Supremes get done with it.

whatcat on March 14, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Well for those who oppose Obama because he is not a “christian” it will be interesting to see if they vote for Romney…

liberal4life on March 14, 2012 at 2:37 PM
Who, as a known Mormon, is Christian by definition.

You know, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Red Cloud on March 14, 2012 at 2:40 PM
Mormons are not Christians . . .(e.g., just because Romney calls himself a Republican, does NOT make it so). Romney is a Democrat! You can call yourself whatever you want . . .it’s your ACTIONS/DEEDS that make the difference.

DUMP MITT NOW!

Pragmatic on March 14, 2012 at 2:49 PM

DUMP MITT NOW!
Pragmatic on March 14, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Yeah! Ignore the will of the voters!! To heck with them!!!

whatcat on March 14, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Perry/Mitt

or

Perry/Palin

or

Palin/Jindal

DUMP MITTENS NOW!

Pragmatic on March 14, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Don’t fool yourself, Paul isn’t giving his delegates to anyone.

SWalker on March 14, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Right… he’s just going to hang onto them til the convention is over and sign them up for free newsletters.

What do you think he wants them for? To use as a bartering chip. He can’t do anything else with them. Jeesh.

Midwesterner on March 14, 2012 at 2:51 PM

McCain also won every single state that voted for Huckabee, who was supposed to be the designated conservative in that race (other than Romney, of course).

Red Cloud on March 14, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Don’t forget Fred “reverse mortgage” Thompson. They loved him over on FR.

rhombus on March 14, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Bottom line for Paul, who is he going to trust? Someone who spent most of his life in business or someone who spent most of his life in Government (much like himself, I might add).

rhombus on March 14, 2012 at 2:40 PM

If Romney is just short, Paul will tell his delegates to support him. That’s pretty clear.

rubberneck on March 14, 2012 at 2:52 PM

MAJOR CORRECTION:

Perry/Mitt should read: Perry/WEST!!!!!

Pragmatic on March 14, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Ron Paul will be king maker and Santorum, Gingrich, Palin, and Bush supporters will go absolutely nuts!
Midwesterner on March 14, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Gran Paul has been promised that he can ride with Rand in the cockpit of Willards’s jet anytime he wants. No big mystery what happens if Gran Paul holds the deciding delegates in August.

wraithby on March 14, 2012 at 2:53 PM

If Romney is just short, Paul will tell his delegates to support him. That’s pretty clear.

rubberneck on March 14, 2012 at 2:52 PM

For Romney/Rand Paul – I expect he would.

rhombus on March 14, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Perry/Mitt should read: Perry/WEST!!!!!

Pragmatic on March 14, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Just a Perry-brain fart, I expect.

rhombus on March 14, 2012 at 2:54 PM

There will be no ‘coming together’! Romney is a Democrat . . .I refuse to support a Democrat for Presdient . . . no vote for Obama and no vote for Romney.

Pragmatic on March 14, 2012 at 2:55 PM

The problem in 2008 wasn’t McCain, it was the conservatives who couldn’t beat McCan.
rhombus on March 14, 2012 at 2:47 PM

2008 was a special set of circumstances. “Bush fatigue” had set in – normal after 8 years of any admin, Obama was presented – totally unvetted and unknown – as something other than what he was and offered up as the “clean, articulate” black guy to play on white voter’s guilt. Lots of factors that are not in play this time.

But I did get a laugh from your “McCan” typo.
:D

whatcat on March 14, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Although the Mississippi and Alabama primaries didn’t prove much except that Santorum can beat Gingrich in the South, one fact is very surprising.

Alabama and Mississippi are nearly mirror-images of each other geographically, both are in the Deep South, and have similar populations, and gave very similar percentages to each candidate in their respective primaries.

But, according to the Google elections page, total turnout was 605,859 votes in Alabama, and only 280,278 votes in Mississippi. Is there apathy among Republican voters in Mississippi, which could lead to problems for the nominee later on?

Steve Z on March 14, 2012 at 2:57 PM

70 people = 9 delegates? WTH is wrong with this system?

Lost in Jersey on March 14, 2012 at 2:31 PM

You want to fly out there and tell the Samoans otherwise?

hanzblinx on March 14, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Good news/bad news – While Romney has the lead, finishing second is about to not pay off anymore.

Steve Eggleston on March 14, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Ok, lets get you on record about the winner take all states. Are you suggest Romney will lose?

rubberneck on March 14, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Mormons are not Christians . . .(e.g., just because Romney calls himself a Republican, does NOT make is so). Romney is a Democrat! You can call yourself whatever you want . . .it’s your ACTIONS that make the difference.

DUMP MITT NOW!

Pragmatic on March 14, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Romney Derangement Syndrome is a terrible thing.

Hi, I’m Red Cloud. And as a concerned citizen, I want to talk to you today about Romney Derangement Syndrome. It impacts more and more otherwise good conservatives every single day, and is the leading cause of early onset dementia in young Republicans today.

Fortunately, I’m here to tell you that there is a cure.

Don’t let Romney Derangement Syndrome consume you, or someone you love. If you see symptoms, which may include incoherent rambling, pathological lying, conspiracy theories, halitosis, and/or foaming at the mouth, get help before it’s too late.

Don’t wait. The life you save could be your own.

Red Cloud on March 14, 2012 at 2:58 PM

DUMP MITT NOW!

Pragmatic on March 14, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Wow, I just learned that Democrats can’t be Christians. That will be news to them. I’ll have to let my cousins know that they are no longer Christians because they are “Democrats”

Funny how so many “Christians” try to take the place of God and determine for themselves who will be saved or not….

“Judge not, that ye be not judged”

Midwesterner on March 14, 2012 at 3:00 PM

For Romney/Rand Paul – I expect he would.

rhombus on March 14, 2012 at 2:53 PM

I really hope it won’t come to that. As much as I appreciate Paul family’s stand on economy and government, there is nothing to gain from such a pick in the national election. I’d rather see either Paul get the Fed than VP.

Archivarix on March 14, 2012 at 3:00 PM

There will be no ‘coming together’! Romney is a Democrat . . .I refuse to support a Democrat for Presdient . . . no vote for Obama and no vote for Romney.

Pragmatic on March 14, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Ah, the take your ball and go home strategy, brilliant.

Minnfidel on March 14, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Is there apathy among Republican voters in Mississippi, which could lead to problems for the nominee later on?
Steve Z on March 14, 2012 at 2:57 PM

The old aphorism that the voting public at large don’t get into election until after Labor Day is true. We’re heading into the summer doldrums, things will really heat up in the fall. For the general voting populace the primaries are boring sausage-making.

whatcat on March 14, 2012 at 3:04 PM

There will be no ‘coming together’! Romney is a Democrat . . .I refuse to support a Democrat for Presdient . . . no vote for Obama and no vote for Romney.
–Pragmatic on March 14, 2012 at 2:55 PM

“Pragmatic.” You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

HTL on March 14, 2012 at 3:05 PM

We’re continuing this ridiculous contest because Santorum think he MIGHT be able to get a VP slot? What a selfish basta#d.

BradTank on March 14, 2012 at 2:06 PM

..agreed. And, sadly, I think Romney’s discounted Sanctorum as a VP running mate.

The War Planner on March 14, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Well for those who oppose Obama because he is not a “christian” …

liberal4life on March 14, 2012 at 2:37 PM

liberal4life,

Does it bother you that Obama has never confessed salvation in Biblical terms (Romans 10:9-10), but rather in the non-Biblical terms of “Collective salvation”?

ITguy on March 14, 2012 at 3:05 PM

“Pragmatic.” You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

HTL on March 14, 2012 at 3:05 PM

..it is somewhat of an ironic sobriquet, isn’t it?

The War Planner on March 14, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Perry/Mitt

or

Perry/Palin

or

Palin/Jindal

DUMP MITTENS NOW!

Pragmatic on March 14, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Ha. Such tickets may have been possible last fall…you know, before Perry embarrassed himself and Palin decided she’d rather debate Obama from, er, the comfort of her Facebook account.

changer1701 on March 14, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Prediction: Santroum will be very close or overtake Romney in delegates by Memorial Day…

Looking at the data…

Priamries/Caucuses in May

NC-55
IND-46
WV-31
NE-35
OR-28
KY-45
AK-36
TX-155

A total of 431 delegates in May, Romney wins maybe 1 state, pending Gingrich is out of the race, May alone could be over 150 delegate net gain for Santorum…

April also looks very good for Santorum his is poised to win the winner take all in WI-42 and PA he should have a net gain of 30+…

Things not looking good for Romney’s and his math going forward…

Remember what the Romney camp said, it would take an “act of God”…

MGardner on March 14, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Does it bother you that Obama has never confessed salvation in Biblical terms (Romans 10:9-10), but rather in the non-Biblical terms of “Collective salvation”?
ITguy on March 14, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Whatever the stripe of Christian, they can tell you why they converted to Christianity. Obama was born a Muslim, but has allegedly rejected his birth-faith. He’s never addressed the when & why.

whatcat on March 14, 2012 at 3:11 PM

For Romney/Rand Paul – I expect he would.
–rhombus on March 14, 2012 at 2:53 PM

It might not even need to be that dramatic. A speaking slot at the convention, and input into the platform, might be all that is required. As has been noted before, Paul and Romney like each other, and Paul certainly has made it clear that he does not like Santorum.

If Santorum and Gingrich weren’t such touchy personalities they would probably get along with Romney too, but both seem to specialize in righteous indignation and victimhood a bit too much to be that amiable.

HTL on March 14, 2012 at 3:11 PM

The point of this blog is not much discussed but is very important. Despite a butt-ugly performance in which (out of the Big Three) Romney came in LAST in vote count, he actually INCREASED his delegate lead over the other two. It’s as if the winning NCAA basketball team, scored the clinching basket by having the ball bounce off an opponent player’s head, carom off the backboard and into the net after bouncing five times on the rim.

The even better news for Romney is that there are only a few evangelical states left.

My feelings are mixed on this. I’m kinda-sorta for Romney but only because I feel the other two players in this melodrama are worse.

MaiDee on March 14, 2012 at 3:12 PM

“Pragmatic.” You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
HTL on March 14, 2012 at 3:05 PM

“Pragmatic” means “bitemarked noseless” to some.

whatcat on March 14, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Remember what the Romney camp said, it would take an “act of God”…

MGardner on March 14, 2012 at 3:10 PM

That caught my eye, too, when I first read it… :-)

ITguy on March 14, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Just a Perry-brain fart, I expect.

rhombus on March 14, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Perry and “brain fart” go together like bacon and eggs.

DuctTapeMyBrain on March 14, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Obama was born a Muslim, but has allegedly rejected his birth-faith. He’s never addressed the when & why.

whatcat on March 14, 2012 at 3:11 PM

Um, no. Obama affirmed his birth-faith when he publicly recited the Shahada in Arabic to New York Times reporter Nicholas Kristof.

The “opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer” are the Shahada, the Muslim confession of faith.

ITguy on March 14, 2012 at 3:17 PM

As we say here in the South, that Mutt just won’t hunt! The Foxetts are so far up the Mutt’s hind end they are sniffing Utah!

el Vaquero on March 14, 2012 at 3:21 PM

I was with Perry until he bowed out, but I have no clue why some of y’all see him as a good VP choice or a consensus candidate for a brokered convention. He was roundly rejected by the party after his early debate performances, and they never looked back. Given that recent history, it would be absolutely insane to put him on the ticket in 2012. If Perry is to have any shot at future national office, he will have to put in the legwork and redeem himself in 2016.

Lawdawg86 on March 14, 2012 at 3:22 PM

The point of this blog is not much discussed but is very important. Despite a butt-ugly performance in which (out of the Big Three) Romney came in LAST in vote count, he actually INCREASED his delegate lead over the other two.

MaiDee on March 14, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Romney’s lead, in terms of delegates, increased last night.

However, Romney’s lead, in terms of % of total delegates earned to date, decreased last night.

ITguy on March 14, 2012 at 3:23 PM

As others have said, Paul won’t give his delegates to the notRomneys as he himself has not run a notRomney campaign, and they like each other while Paul seems to severely dislike Santorum.

Zaggs on March 14, 2012 at 2:33 PM

True, but my point is that Romney isn’t exactly tearing things up. If RP were not in the race, I don’t think it would be much different. Romney may be a decent guy, good business man, great family man, but exciting he is not. Because the media and Democrat party form a large mutual admiration society, giving each other awards and patting each other on the back, Obama (being the most admired of the admired) is going to be puffed up even more than he already is (witness the tongue bath at the NCAA playoff game last night). Obama is exciting to his base and the squishy middle. The excitement becomes revulsion in rational people, but anyone who thinks it is best to live by what feels best is going to have a hard time voting for someone who evokes a “meh” at best. I’m not advocating for any of the candidates and the perceived negatives of the others may make it even worse for them. But something needs to change or Obama and his lackies in the media and entertainment world (virtually one in the same) will gin up the emotion to a greater fever pitch than they did in 2008. It sucks that rational thought can’t just win, but it probably can’t.

BillyWilly on March 14, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Sorry Ed, but these are the numbers that matter:
Romney has won 41 delegates from Tuesday’s contests, compared to 35 for Santorum, thereby expanding Romney’s delegate lead. (Gingrich is projected to have won 24 delegates.)

Romney leads in delegates over Santorum, 494-251, with Gingrich trailing badly at 131.

We all know it takes delegates! While many want to state that Romney cannot win in the South he actually is not losing these votes by a wide margin which shows that he DOES have quite a bit of support. Also the vote, as throughout the primaries, the vote has been split four ways.

Romney has been the ONLY one to compete in ALL the states as well compared to RS and NG who have decided NOT to campaign in certain areas. So really, who is the stronger candidate against Obama.
Answer: Romney.

g2825m on March 14, 2012 at 3:36 PM

70 people = 9 delegates? WTH is wrong with this system?

Lost in Jersey on March 14, 2012 at 2:31 PM

…and our Country?

KOOLAID2 on March 14, 2012 at 3:38 PM

MGardner on March 14, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Mgardner,

I keep seeing this on here so I went and checked. Wisconsin
and Pennsylvania are just like most of the other states
Winner take all by CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT and needed over 50 percent to get all the unallocated delegates. less than 50 and its split up.

To repeat to posters who don’t want to check themselves.

MOST of the states that are coming up until the end of JUNE are
WINNER TAKE ALL BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT. they are not winner take all by just getting the most votes in a state.

Ed,allapundit,korbe are no more knowledgable about the allocation rules than most people. they keep referring to these as if it’s 2008. It;s not. you don’t have to belive me. research it yourselves.

gerry

gerrym51 on March 14, 2012 at 3:50 PM

The even better news for Romney is that there are only a few evangelical states left.

MaiDee on March 14, 2012 at 3:12 PM

See my post above the map heavily favors Santorum, especially May going forward…

MGardner on March 14, 2012 at 3:51 PM

It is sad to read many of the comments around here. When the election season started last year the message from conservatives was “We must defeat Obama”. Now however, it has become “We must defeat Romney”. Really?!!! Are you KIDDING me?!!! Way to keep your eyes on the prize boys and girls.

Suddenly conservatives, Tea Parties, and so forth are talking about “What can we do to stop Romney from getting to 1144?”. The arrogance displayed by Gringrich and Santorum in, as candidates, bringing this up rather than talking about issues is literally preparing a nice silver platter to serve Obama his second term.

It is sad also that so many of the “not-Romney” crowd siding with Santorum are unwilling to judge the guy’s record. You call “conservative” the guy who voted to raise the debt ceiling like 5 or 6 times?!!!! I thought we were supposed to be against that!!! What about voting to fund Planned Parenthood? Is the outrage nowadays simply because of the Democratic majority in the Senate, but was ok when Santorum was there and voted for it? And his pro- union votes what? Or what about his favoring of a health mandate much like Gringrich did?

A guy who has spent how many years in Washignton or in politics in general for the RNC is somehow “not the establishment”? That’s you “conservative” answer to a guy who actually has private sector experience, who cut taxes like 5 times in a deep blue state, and that has remained on message all throughout talking about what is really ailing the country- the economy.

Romneycares? Sure, it was a mistake, but it is not off the table against Obama. Romney can easily make the the Constitutionsl case that the Framers intended for States to try things individually. Laboratories of Democracy they called this. And, as such, there is a difference between something tried in Massachussets, right or wrong, and something like Obamacare forcing everyone to buy a product just for being a citizen. This would bring State’s right back into the debate against O.

Besides, do you really think that the guy who got so much flack over this (even though it was a plan already in the works by the time he became Governor) would pull something like that again as president or would not follow through with repealing O-care with the eyes of the majority of the country that favor the latter on him?

It would be nice to have a president with some business experience, for a change, that is focused on the most pressing issue at this time- the economy and the balance sheets. In the end, though, everyone should and will vote for who they want, but don’t fool yourselves into thinking that Santorum is any more conservative than Gringrich, Paul, or Romney. Afterall, did you hear his debates back in November? He may talk about the Constitution and individual rights to a crowd, but very well he gave his “big government” solution to social issues, not different from O’s ideas but just from the other side.

A candidate like Santorum may appeal to the purely conservative delegates and may win them, but he won’t win a general election against O like that. Romney may not be charismatic (how’s the last charismatic, appealing candidate working out fir ya’?) but he can get a much broader range of people in the general.

Don’t let the “ideal” be the enemy of the good. There is no Reagan coming, but the next president will be dealing with terrible economic issues over social ones.

Besides, Reagan passed pro-choice laws while he was governor of CA, among other less than conservative positions, yet he became probably the best president of the last century and the definition of conservatism.

ptcamn on March 14, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Perry/Mitt

mitt has an IQ of 140. combined with perry the ticket would have an IQ of 140

lol

gerrym51 on March 14, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Gibbs on CNN called last night a BIG loss for Romney. Haha. He won the most delegates. How long are we going to spin that Romney is through? he keeps winning the delegates and has the best poll numbers against Obama. And I dont buy Newt or Rick’s attempt to define Mitt as a Moderate. Newt and Rick have their own records that show they are big government spenders and Rick is also pro-union. So give me a break.

WyoMike on March 14, 2012 at 3:56 PM

ptcamn on March 14, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Concur!!

If Santorum is such a GREAT candidate where was his support in Aug? Oct? Nov? it was actually the DEBATES that hurt him because people were seeing what a BIG GOV’T social conservative he IS and also how POUTY he gets when he does not get his way. Notice how since the debates have stopped (I do believe there were too many) that Santorum has risen in the polls? People forgot how childish he acted at times in the debates.

Also where are the PA backers of RS? Those that know him so well?

g2825m on March 14, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Good lord Mittens supporters are whiny.

alwaysfiredup on March 14, 2012 at 4:03 PM

If Romney ends the primary season with a sizable lead in the popular vote and delegates, the 1144 number won’t really matter. The unbound delegates will see the handwriting on the wall and push him over the finish line. Picking someone else will be seen as going against the will of the voters and will brand the one who is chosen as illegitimate. That is the last thing that the majority of delegates at the convention will want. Santorum and Gingrich are good men that I would vote for if they won, but the math simply isn’t adding up for them. They are both hoping to deny Romney the 1144 number needed for a clear win (they may actually succeed in doing that). They both hope that they can then somehow convince the unbound delegates to vote for them. The problem is, if they both stay in, neither one will have enough bound delegates to win the nomination on the first vote, even if all of the unbound delegates decided to back one of them. It doesn’t matter who “true” conservatives think is the best candidate, the eventual nominee has to get over the finish line with a minimum of 1144 delegates and be perceived by the electorate as the choice of the voters. Picking someone else who either did not participate in the primary process or who got 2-3 million votes less than Romney would be political suicide for the GOP and most of the delegates at the convention will understand that. Even if many of them don’t see Romney as their first choice, they will obey the voice of the voters and make him the nominee. Of course, that will probably p*ss off the social conservative wing of the party, but most of them will still show up in November to help remove the king-in-chief from his throne.

NuclearPhysicist on March 14, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Romney may be winning technically, but he is not generating any enthusiasm except among a few blog posters.

BillyWilly on March 14, 2012 at 2:30 PM

And just how are the other guys at “generating any enthusiasm”?

Worse?

LOL!!!

Gunlock Bill on March 14, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Romney Derangement Syndrome is a terrible thing.

Hi, I’m Red Cloud. And as a concerned citizen, I want to talk to you today about Romney Derangement Syndrome. It impacts more and more otherwise good conservatives every single day, and is the leading cause of early onset dementia in young Republicans today.

Fortunately, I’m here to tell you that there is a cure.

Don’t let Romney Derangement Syndrome consume you, or someone you love. If you see symptoms, which may include incoherent rambling, pathological lying, conspiracy theories, halitosis, and/or foaming at the mouth, get help before it’s too late.

Don’t wait. The life you save could be your own.

Red Cloud on March 14, 2012 at 2:58 PM

That was very good.

Sure are a lot of folks that need your help.

Gunlock Bill on March 14, 2012 at 4:11 PM

NC-55
IND-46
WV-31
NE-35
OR-28
KY-45
AK-36
TX-155

Those are all proportional and there’s no way Romney doesn’t break the 20% threshold even if he does lose every one of those states which is impossible because santorum is so incompetent he didn’t even make all of the district ballots in IN. Romney is also going to take the northeast by huge margins, higher than by what santorum won by last night, and most of those are winner take all. Let’s not forget about CA, NY, CN and NJ.. And Please try to be somewhat informed.

1984 in real life on March 14, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3