I’ve got to say, I’m incredibly proud to be a Wyoming resident this evening. The delegates from my state are representing my top three choices in the current Republican field (and the only three I’d really feel comfortable voting for).
Here are the final results:
Wyoming Delegate Allocation
- Romney – 8 (67%)
- Thompson – 3 (25%)
- Hunter – 1 (8%)
- All others – 0 (0%)
So Romney wins a second place and a first place going into New Hampshire. The total delegates so far are:
Total Delegate Allocation
- Romney – 26
- Huckabee – 20
- Thompson – 6
- McCain – 3
- Paul – 2
- Hunter – 1
- Giuliani – 1
New Hampshire awards 12 delegates, and they are split proportionally among any candidate who gets at least 10%. Most likely, that will be McCain, Romney, and Huckabee in some order, with Giuliani and Paul fighting to get above the cutoff.
That means that even if Romney gets second in New Hampshire, he will still lead the delegate total going in to Michigan. I know that the momentum will not be with Romney, obviously, if he doesn’t win there, but here’s another thought I had earlier this morning: with victories divided among several candidates in the early states, it may benefit Romney who plays well in every early state. He could theoretically stay in the delegate race despite a loss in Iowa, and he definitely has the cash to stay competitive on 2/5 if that’s the case.
In other words, Romney’s strategy of competing in every state (and picking up delegates from all of them) puts him in a better position than candidates who pick and choose states (Huckabee in IA, SC; Thompson in SC; Giuliani in FL and 2/5; McCain in NH; etc.). It’s all up to how well he performs in New Hampshire, and I don’t think he is necessarily out of the race if he gets second.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
What happens if no one gets a majority going into the GOP convention?
January 5th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Hmm, Wyoming actually picked conservative candidates.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
E Dogg, in that case the RNC picks. Most likely they’ll pick Romney.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
E dogg
we get bedlum and we lose in November. We have to decide the race before a convention.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
You are totally forgetting the obvious. The storyline/strategy that set up the expectations.
Team Mitt TOLD THE MEDIA theirs was a IA+NH springboard strategy. They said they DIDN’T EVEN CARE ABOUT POOR POLLING NATIONALLY because of that. They dumped TENS OF MILLIONS into mostly those 2 tiny states.
To lose them both on THAT storyline is DEATH. Capice?
January 5th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
bjlader26, NO THE RNC DOES NOT PICK. How many lies are you going to tell in 10 minutes?
January 5th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
A brokered convention does not equal “the RNC picks.” Read. I highly recommend education.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
#1, then it goes to the convention for the first time since 1976. I can’t wait, it will be an old fashion convention the likes of which are thought to have been from a by-gone era
January 5th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Since the world we live in is media driven it must be a media driven strategy that wins the day. The media cares about IA, NH, Mich. (GOP), SC, and FL.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
It could be that Romney comes out ahead with the 50 state strategy.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Metro, I think he was meaning RNC as Republican National Convention, not Committee
January 5th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Metro,
you are losing me as a fan tonight. You are usually a good source of analysis. For the better part of 6 mnths youve been pretty straight up. You seem to be acting the way I saw MCcain act tonight. Bitter and all ill tempered.
Surely you can represent Rudy better than this. You make it hard for me to support Rudy if he is the only guy left standing
January 5th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
It’s nice to see Romney ahead in the delegate count at this point – have ANY media picked up on this yet??
January 5th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Just a reminder to my giddy Romney friends about their delegate lead, it takes 1089 (give or take) to win the nomination. We have a long long way to go yet
January 5th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
cj, why? I’m not on Rudy’s campaign.
I’m fed up with the constant lying that comes from one single camp.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Okay, here’s my thought on the debate, for anyone who’s interested in my opinion =-)
1a. Romney- He got attacked A LOT, but I thought that he handled it well. He also backed McCain into a corner on immigration, which is exactly what he wanted to do in New Hampshire at the moment.
1b. Giuliani- Very eloquent, stayed above the fray. Very good performance that makes me think maybe he’s not dead/I could support him.
2. Thompson- Very good points- I love this guy’s conservatism. Problem is, he seems tired and/or rambling at times, and the slow pace of his speech makes me a little sleepy sometimes. Good ideas though…and this guy is very very good at one-liners!
3. Paul, believe it or not- I disagree vehemently with Ron Paul, but he serves his purpose and did a good job for his campaign. When he talked about his appeal to young voters I really enjoyed listening to him.
4. Huckabee- Totally gave up on the nice guy image. It wasn’t pretty either! I do NOT like the nasty Mike Huckabee…in my opinion the only thing going for him is the fact that he’s a nice, homegrown Southern gentleman. Tonight he smashed that image.
5. McCain- What can I say? Childish, smug, elitist…I always wondered why conservatives hate this man so much, and I realized it tonight. I think he looked very very petty, and he outright lied that he never supported amnesty. Bad show, JMac.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Right or wrong I have always associated you with being a Rudy supporter.
I am big on equating the followers with the leader.
and from my perspective the lying comes from all camps, not just one. Everyone spins
I think a great many bloggers are underinformed on the political process in this country. What you see as being deceptive may actually be ignorance being manifest, My BA in Poli Sci and a JD tend to mean that I have studied a little more than others the process we are engaged in. I sense you have that knowledge as well.
I think everyone is passionate about their guy and try to do their level best to represent what they perceive reality to be. Sometimes that comes across as good, sometimes bad.
Bottom line dont piss off your enemy when you will need them to be your friend
January 5th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
#17 is meant for metro,
January 5th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
cj, if you’re that perceptive, then you know full well which camp is responsible for the vast majority of the distortions in this race.
Even if you’re a Mormon, you know it, deep down.
Mormons are good people. It’s too bad Mitt has made a bad name for them.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
The debate this evening produced one thing (and oodles of it to boot):
moFREDtum
Look for Fred to start to break out.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Metro,
Why do you have to bring up the religion of Mitt, what does that matter?
January 5th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
The original Romney strategy would not have worked. The dems race is sucking up all the media attention and no one is paying attention to the GOP race in IA and NH. That means no momentum to the winner. The Zogby tracking is showing that Huck got no boost at all.
Romney will win the nomination with the original Rudy strategy. It’s crazy but that’s what will happen. Rudy is fading fast and can barely stay ahead of Ron Paul. Romney is the only candidate with the resources to compete in the big states. McCain got a loan to air his ads in NH but after that he has nowhere to go. Huck won’t have time to organize church groups in multiple big states. He spent all year doing that in Iowa.
Super Tuesday will be Mitt Tuesday. Rudy is on his way out. Huck and McCain are broke. Fred has no will to fight for this thing.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
#20, Where exactly. Say what you want about the other candidates, but I have yet to see where Fred makes his stand. SC?, where the vote is chopped up 5 different ways. I want someone, maybe you or Tommy, to show me how exactly Fred gets the nomination, numbers-wise
January 5th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
eyeon08:
That leads me to my second fact. Judd Gregg was the first person to leave the debate. The first one. Not the second. The first.
Talk about buyers remorse!
January 5th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
John S, because when nobody can admit the obvious, you know it’s a religious thing.
The only Romney supporters around here who can acknowledge when he screws up are the few who are not Mormons.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Metro, chill with the religion thing. I know you are a passionate Rudyite, but going on about Romney’s faith doesn’t help our cause
January 5th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Not true, Jared admits when Romney does mess up and he is a Mormon. So be very careful with your generalizations and stereotypes.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
The Wyoming Delgates will be stripped in Half, is that taken into account here?? I dont think that Romney has that many Delegates, b/c Wyoming is meaningless, that’s why hardly no one campaigned there!
January 5th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Argamenon, “Romney will win the nomination with the original Rudy strategy.”
What, win FL and then win big in CA, IL, NY, NJ, CT, DE?
January 5th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
out of curiosity, does anyone know the rules for what happens if someone gets the nomination and for whatever reason, isn’t around by the time the convention rolls around and before he picked a running mate?
how does that work, does whoever had the 2nd most delegates then get the nomination?
January 5th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Metro, sorry my simplistic answer wasn’t good enough for you, I haven’t really looked into how exactly a brokered convention would work, I’ve just read comments from others, but you’re really coming off as a scumbag today. I’m going to try and assume it’s a bad day for you for now. Maybe tomorrow will be better.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Matt C,
Nice post. These days I’m very partial to geeking out over the delegate race. Best case scenario, Romney turns things around and sweeps it. More realistically though, everyone has their wins and losses, and Romney is in a very favorable position in delegate counts come Feb 5.
I wonder if the delegate race will get the big media focus come Feb 4 if we still have more than two candidates in the running.
Anyone else think the old “power rankings” should be replaced with the new “delegates rankings”? Alphabeticalization is a real waste of information footprint.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
jim, are you planning an assassination?
January 5th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
#30, it still goes to the convention and those delegates vote for someone else. For instance, after RFK’s assassination in 68, his delegates got to vote for whomever
January 5th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Bob, take a look at this link, Iowa wasn’t a winner take all and Mitt killed in Wyoming.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#R
January 5th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Metro,
I understand your complaints. I agree to degree they are justified.
But I imagine that there are those who would say the same about each campaign. Perception is impossible to overcome unless you train your mind to ignore it.
A serious campaign related question.
With Rudys absence from the political discussion right now, are you afraid that the gameplan may backfire? Does Rudy try to make a play for MI?
January 5th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Has anyone figured out what percent of the Mormons that participated in the Iowa caucas voted for Mitt? 90%? And to think, they’re saying Evangelicals should feel sorry for themselves because 50% voted for Huckabee.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
metro, of course not. what an absurd and insulting question.
However, with Obama as the nominee, I do think there’s a greater chance of something happening to him than just about any candidate in recent memory.
Of course, it something were to happen it would just about guarantee the dems the WH.
But still, I wa just wondering what would happen and who the new nominee would be.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
E Dogg,
What’s your point?
January 5th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Fellow Romneybots. Let’s make Metro happy and post all our criticisms of Mitt Romney. I’ll go first.
Mitt has trouble connecting with average people. He’s lived a charmed life and cannot understand what regular folks go through. 2nd, Mitt listens too much to his political advisors. He learned the hard way courtesy of his dad that if you always tell people exactly what you think, then you will be made a national joke. I also believes that his tendency to be precise leads him to avoid answering directly difficult questions. I wish Mitt Romney would not have dipped into his personal fortune to run negative ads. It smacks of unfairness. Finally, I think Mitt Romney’s message is not suited toward an election where people are hurting economically. If the economy is in recession, Romney will not be elected as it will be Bush-Clinton all over again.
Finally, I like Mitt Romney. He has a great family and has lived a morally straight life. If there’s inconsistency, I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt, until I see concrete evidence that Mitt expressly lied. So far, I have not seen the kind of evidence that leads me to believe that Mitt Romney is not an upright, honest individual.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:00 am
cj, I know distortion when I see it. I’ve hated John McCain a lot longer than Mitt Romney, but his campaign is not distorting things on a daily basis. Nor is Fred’s.
I think Rudy’s had to retreat to FL due to Huck catching on fire in IA and McCain reigniting in NH.
I kind of like the line in the sand, actually. It means he avoids the negative ads, the bloodbath, the mud. By the time Huck and McCain (probably) get to him in FL, they are badly wounded and weakened.
I like the fact that he is telling FL/CA/etc he is expecting them to exercise their newfound power. To render the ridiculous position IA and NH have had irrelevant. It’s a very powerful argument. Having spent my life in the big states, I know how much they all hate IA and NH choosing our nominees.
I also like the fact that Hillary will probably be in the same boat. Because it will be not just about Rudy’s strategy any more. It will be about both races, and the media will be discussing whether FL/CA/etc will choose to exercise their newfound power or not.
I also like Rudy in a Huck/McCain contest, because it forces the conservative opinion makers around Rudy to stop the 2 candidates they dislike.
I also like Rudy in a Huck/Mitt contest, because he’s the only one with foreign policy gravitas, especially with McCain’s endorsement.
I was only worried about Rudy in a Mitt/McCain contest, but thankfully IA fixed that.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:02 am
Murphy, I kind of think the power rankings are meaningless at this point. I’m not sure what I’d do with it.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:02 am
bjalder26,
C’mon, guy. You’ve been around here long enough to know by now that Disagree with Metro = You Lie. How stupid can you be?
January 6th, 2008 at 12:03 am
Irish, not at all. There are a million ways to disagree with me without lying.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Regarding Power Rankings, I’d love to see them based on Intrade, which is better than any polls or pundits.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:05 am
Yeah I think I agree with Argamenon. I’m sure Romney and his team are seriously thinking that they might have to change strategies and go the Rudy way if he loses NH. He has the money and organization to still make it competitive and maybe pull it off.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:06 am
E Dogg. . .You must understand that the difference between Romney and his Mormon support in Iowa and Huck and his Evangelical support is strictly numbers. Huck depended on that support and won because of it. Romney couldn’t just count on the Mormon vote to propell him into the White House. I think you’re making a false comparison.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:06 am
by the way, if there is a recession, it doesn’t matter who the nominee is, the dems will win.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Romney please get out of the race! This race is only going to get nastier. This is how I see it.
1. Romney can self finance which means that donors to other campaigns will hold back. No one is going to get money from a single win, they have put up a string of wins.
2. No one is going to run the table. Rudy may do it on Super Tuesday, but I doubt it. This thing is going to be regionalized and fractured. Welcome the circular firing squad.
3. This is going to a convention.
4. It’s largely Romney’s fault, because a couple of loss would mean and end to his candidacy, but he will just try to stick around and pound the airs with his ads. No one will get any mojo going.
Please Mitt drop out!
January 6th, 2008 at 12:08 am
I think the article on politico about how all of the other campaigns despise Romney and Madden is very insightful.
It’s why I thought he’d have have trouble all along.
At some point, the Rudy/McCain/Fred and now it appears Huck people will all coalesce against Romney(they already have in large part).
That universe is greater than Mitt’s support and once it comes down to Willard vs somebody else, somebody else wins.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:09 am
Metro, if there are so many distortions from the Romney camp, why doesn’t Rudy get into the fight and point them out to us. Face it, your guy is chicken. I can understand abandoning Iowa, but New Hampshire, too? His support has fallen in half because people realize the guy isn’t up to a fight. As soon as you examine his record, he wilts. At least John McCain has the stones to put up a fight.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:10 am
Nowandlater,
I think after tonight it’s more appropriate to say that to Huckabee. His showing at the debate was pathetic on all levels. Huckabee please drop out, you don’t have a chance in anywhere else but SC.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:11 am
“Regarding Power Rankings, I’d love to see them based on Intrade, which is better than any polls or pundits.”
I wouldn’t mind that because with all it’s flaws, at least it’s means to be predictive, and it will most likely respond to changes in the race. Hey, I’m not a liar now.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:11 am
nowandlater. . . um, huh? No one will run the table, but Romney should drop out because he has a lot of money, and it’s all Romney’s fault if he tries to campaign? What does that all mean? I understand you’re a Mormon who doesn’t want other Mormons to succeed (which I still don’t understand), but maybe you can explain #49 a little better.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:12 am
What about this scenario?
McCain wins on Tuesday and in MI. Huck wins SC.
The establishment and conservatives in general are apoplectic. McCain and Huck? Both are too awful to contemplate.
But, if one of them wins FL, it’s likely over. They could go to Rudy, but he’s anathema in many ways.
They need someone who can win FL and have a name recognition and a nat’l base of support to win on 2/5.
A day or two after South Carolina, Jeb Bush announces that he’s tired of the division and the bickering and throws his hat in the ring, backed by W to carry on his legacy.
He wins FL, the base falls in line, he wins on 2/5 and goes on to win the nomination.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:12 am
Is this over the line? Huckabee unveiled a new health care plan today: It involves handling snakes.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:13 am
Nowandlater, what’s so wrong with a brokered convention.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:13 am
On #45, but we can already get that information off of intrade. why copy it?
January 6th, 2008 at 12:14 am
If we get a brokered convention, I’m convinced it will be John McCain, as he is “the next in line”.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:14 am
Huckabee could sweep the South (other than Florida), I wouldn’t count him out or any of them out right now, tis too early
January 6th, 2008 at 12:15 am
Missed the debate. Anyone know where I can watch it on the web?
January 6th, 2008 at 12:15 am
#55, pretty wild! And very unlikely.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:16 am
#29
yes, but he doesn’t need to win all of those. He only needs to consistently finish in the top 2. McCain, Huck and Rudy are niche candidates. They do very well in some places and very poorly in others. And pattern is already emerging. Romney is scoring delegates in every contest. If he can keep that up he wins.
In IA, WY and NH the top 2 candidates are Romney and Huck, Romney and Thompson and Romney and McCain respectively. Only Romney is picking up a significant number of delegates in all 3 contests. I don’t think anybody will drop out anytime soon now. Different candidates will keep winning in different states and Romney will always be there scoring delegates.
He is waging a war of attrition. Huck and McCain may even win now but their coffers will be drained and they’ll have no resources to compete tomorrow. But Romney will just write himself another check and keep scoring delegates until the last state has its primary.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:16 am
ajay, because it’s convenient to have it here. And why go with something less likely to be accurate?
January 6th, 2008 at 12:16 am
A brokered convention won’t happen. Ever again. The parties simply won’t allow it to occur. The last time it came close to happening was when the Dems had their disasterous convention in 1968. Even the GOP convention of 76 hurt the party, when the Moderates and Ford fought with the Conservatives and Reagan. Brokered conventions guarantee a weak candidate coming out of it, and the party leaders will negotiate a leading candidate going into the convention before allowing it to start with no decision.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:18 am
Florida has a large evangelical population. Especially if Fred is dead by 1/29, Huckabee could win here pretty nicely.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:19 am
alaska, if nobody gets 1,191 delegates in the GOP race, it happens. However, Michael Barone wrote a few months ago that it would be brokered behind the scenes, before the convention itself.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:19 am
Wikipedia keeps pretty good tabs on the results of the primaries, if anyone is interested. . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Republican_Presidential_Primaries_%28Results%29
January 6th, 2008 at 12:19 am
Metro,
The attrition game is a good and at the same time bad strategy.
The good is that you have 0 expectations to meet. You save your money until you have to spend it and you focus ahead of the rest of the pack.
The bad is that you are irrelevant and then you all of a sudden are back in peoples minds. You disappear for a while so to speak. With MCcain that wasnt such a bad thing to do , he had baggage on issues. Rudy has baggage on personal stuff but not issues. So unlike McCain who used his time to become relevant again in NH, I fear Rudy has no plus to not being involved.
I think at some point Rudy has to reingage prior to FL. MI makes good sense as does SC. Even NV would be a good place to get involved.
Ny and CT we know go his way. CA is not a winner take all like the other 2 so if someone else is Relevant at that time he may have a tougher road than he expects.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:20 am
Argamenon, if Romney is going to spend his whole fortune to wage a 1976-style campaign, then I’d prefer he win NH so McCain drops out and Rudy gets that support. But it’s too late, McCain’s going to win.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:20 am
Metro. . . I know the math. I was speaking about exactly what Barone said.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:20 am
Romney and Clinton have many similarities right now. Both are political scions (Mitt George, Hillary Bill), both have a perceived difficulty showing warmth and connecting personally with voters, both have good ‘machines’ in the early states, both are well-funded. Both have been taking attacks from all sides for some time now. Both saw their leads in Iowa diminish relatively close to the caucuses. Both ‘lost’ Iowa. Both have seen their leads in New Hampshire become deficits in the last week or so.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:20 am
Metro, how can you live with McCain lying everyday about his record on supporting amnesty. I mean, Romney has gone on record as saying that we was wrong abortion, but McCain is never wrong, never. I love that Tancredo is helpign Romney in New Hampshire on this issue. Even if Mitt doesn’t win that state, it keeps the issues alive for the coming dtates.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:21 am
I can see a path where Romney (or someone else) can secure delegates without actually winning, but I return to a post I made months ago regarding delegate counts (comparing it to Dungeons and Dragons). If you have to win the nomination by winning some chess game with the party, you’re not really that strong a candidate and you will get pounded in the general.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:22 am
cj, it’s risky, yes, but it’s his best shot. Nobody had an easy shot. Basing one’s whole campaign on IA and/or NH was very risky.
I’m pretty sure Team Rudy has ways of staying in the discussion. But I also believe they don’t really have to be a major factor until FL. In fact, it puts that much MORE attention on whether FL will exercise its power to select the nominee or not. And that is a very, very good storyline.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:22 am
To compare Bill Clinton to George Romney is laughable.
I think Hillary actually actually has more balls than Mitt, though, so that’s one difference.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:22 am
Brian, Florida has a lot of everyone. Cubans, ex New Yorkers, Puerto Ricans, Catholics, Protestants, moderates and conservatives, oldesters and youngsters. We are a micro-America down here and we are one of the most diverse states in America, much more so than IA or NH
January 6th, 2008 at 12:23 am
on the intrade thing why dont we just post the numbers here in the top corner or something?
Are we allowed to do that or is it proprietary info?
January 6th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Greg, I do think McCain occasionally lies, but it’s rare rather than daily. I think Rudy gave a great explanation tonight about what is and what is not amnesty.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:25 am
cj, Race42008 could do that, just like Real Clear Politics does.
Argamenon/asparagus, you’re forgetting that a lot of states are winner-take-all.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:27 am
Does anyone note the irony that conservatives and Republicans including the very same establishment that’s so anti-immigration at the moment, overwhelmingly backed a guy who’s position on immigration is the same as McCain’s, held up as a god in Karl Rove someone who was the architect of the immigration reform push, and turned out in greater than 90% to support him in 2004 knowing he was for amnesty and was pro-immigration?
How can anyone rip McCain on immiigration when he’s the same as Bush on the issue? Why was no one tough on Bush about immigration. I don’t recall one debate question in 200 or 2004 about it.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:27 am
Metro, where is Mitt lying? His ads are accurate.
Whereas Huck’s “I’m not going to run this” ad had blatant falsities, like Mitt’s MA didn’t excute anyone, despite the fact Executions were outlawed long before Mitt arrived.
Tonight, Mitt was the only one who didn’t personally attack another candidate. He knew the issues and was the most specific. Both Rudy and Thompson did well there as well. McCain was slime.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:29 am
Jim, I see that. The two worst candidates on immigration, are leading in the first two states, and in Iowa voters said that was the most important issue. Voters are idiots.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:30 am
People ripped Bush on the issue too.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:35 am
We wouldn’t fractured if Mitt was running. Because he is in the race, donors will not gravitate to anyone because they feel that they will be matching Mitt’s campaign dollar for dollar.
We have 5 frontrunners which means we have no frontrunner. No one will win a string a states but each candidate is a regional candidate.
It’s a game of attrition and suddenly it looks like Rudy’s gameplan was genious.
If we want to stop Rudy, then we need Mitt to drop out. Please Mitt drop out of the race!
January 6th, 2008 at 12:38 am
Nowandlater,
Mitt won’t drop out he just won Wyoming and will win NH or come in second. It sounds like the guy who needs to drop out is Huckabee. Even one of his most ardent supporters Brett, said that he didn’t do too well in the debate. Huckabee please drop out and go stay in a Holiday Inn Express and brush up on your foreign policy.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:43 am
#70
“I’d prefer he win NH so McCain drops out and Rudy gets that support.”
That might be the only way to stop Romney. Why do you think every candidate was trashing him tonight? The big elephant in the room was that every candidate not named Mitt or Ron Paul is broke and everyone knows it. And they have no time to raise money. We’ll have one primary after the other and even if McCain wins NH he’ll only have a few days before SC where he’ll be expected to win again or be doomed. But he is spending all the money he has to win NH. This will be a long campaign.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:46 am
#85. . .again, why are you singling out Romney to drop out when you say there are no front runners? Why is a fractured race solely Romney’s fault? You’ve said this twice now, and I still don’t get your logic. Please explain.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:47 am
There isn’t going to be a brokered convention.
Either McCain or Romney will be functionally out of the race after NH. If McCain loses, his momentum disappears and he’s toast. If Romney loses, he can self-finance ’till the cows come home but he will be marginalized and will drop down to single digits or lower double digits everywhere. He can win 10 percent in every state through Feb. 5th for all anyone cares. It’s not going to make him the nominee or yield a brokered convention.
Then it’s the NH winner v. Huck in Michigan and South Carolina. Huck has to win one of those. If he loses three in a row, IA becomes a fluke and Huck is out.
Then it’s Rudy v. either the NH winner and Huck, or just Rudy v. the NH winner. This is where things get interesting. If FL is the race that I envision — Rudy, McCain, and Huckabee — then it wouldn’t be hard to see each candidate getting about a third of the vote. Whoever wins gets all of Florida’s delegates though, and that candidate will all of the sudden be way, way ahead in the delegate count and will become the national frontrunner overnight and probably sweep the Super Tuesday states. This will be a lot easier for Rudy or McCain to do than Huckabee though. Huck probably can’t seal the deal on blue state laden 2/5 the way Rudy or McCain could. But even if McCain wins NH and MI, Huck wins SC and FL, Rudy wins NY/NJ/DE/CT, Huck wins IL, Huck, McCain, and Rudy split CA, etc, etc, etc, we’ll probably still have a nominee by the original Super Tuesday in March. A brokered convention is very, very unlikely.
BTW, I still think McCain and Rudy are more likely to get the nomination than anyone else at this point. Romney’s finished after Tuesday, Thompson’s done after SC, and a lot of things would have to fall into place just right for Huck to be the nominee. FWIW, the folks over at Intrade agree with me.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:48 am
If Mitt loses this Tuesday, he should drop out, because he will just end up killing other peoples’ momentum.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:49 am
Alaska,
Nowandlater has no logic, he’s posting based upon a hatred for Romney and a love for Huckabee. Just discount anything he says, he really doesn’t have any relevance.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:49 am
DaveG, I agree with just about all of that! Going to do some delegate math……
January 6th, 2008 at 12:50 am
#91. . .yeah I see that now.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:53 am
DaveG, the problem is, as I realized yesterday, is that even if Mitt loses NH and MI, but chooses to continue self-financing, he can get 10%+, maybe 15%+, maybe even 20%… and that prevents Rudy from beating McCain in FL.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:53 am
John S.,
Thanks for the compliment. Geez.
Here is my bottomline:
ROMNEY IS NOT ELECTABLE.
But at the same time, he has enough money and enough supporters to damage or bring down whoever may be leading in the Republican field. Because of his vast resources, he is going to bring down a notch whoever gains a little bit of momentum (except for possible Rudy’s on Super-Tuesday). He is killing the other campaigns in terms of their fundraising because the big-fish are reluctant to throw money away to compete against Mitt.
He is killing the party’s chances. Yes it is his fault and he needs to drop out and not try to win this thing through attrition.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:55 am
mitt needs wins, he can’t second place his way to the nomination. eventually either mccain or rudy will win successive states, giving them dramatic boosts in delegate counts. plus the national media seems poised to cancel out mitt if he loses NH. losses in iowa(where he campaigned the most) NH (a neighbor state) and michigan (home state with dad as gov) equal the end of romney, period. if he cant win in those places, how does he beat rudy/mccain in moderate centers like ny, pa, ohio, cali, minnesota, on and on and on. mitts needs a win in NH, or he is going to crater.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:55 am
#95. . . Yeah that cleared it all up.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:56 am
It’s true and you know it.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:58 am
Nowandlater,
I feel the same way about the Huckster he is ruining any chances for Mitt to sweep IA, NH, SC. Get behind somebody who is a true leader, and not the pastor in command. This guy (read Huckabee) is clueless about foreign policy, right when we need somebody who has a clue about this. You don’t think the Victocrats will point this out in the general? Huckabee would get slaughtered in the general.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:59 am
So even though the vast majority of Romney’s money is from donated funds, he should still drop out? And even if he loses early states but still gets as much as 20% of the vote, he should still drop out, even though those votes are from actual supporters? His votes are somehow not as significant or important as the others’ votes? I don’t understand the logic here? Romney is 1st or 2nd in many states. That’s better than other candidates. Why should that not matter?
January 6th, 2008 at 1:00 am
nowandlater. . .What you’re implying is that we should take one poll, and everyone who doesn’t come in first should drop out immediately.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:00 am
Metro: I take it you’re assuming that if McCain wins NH/MI/SC, he comes into FL with 40 percent of the vote or higher, thus making a Romney 20 percent snag a death knell for Rudy?
January 6th, 2008 at 1:00 am
rudy, i feel, has now given himself 2 viable paths to the presidency : either rudy beats mccain/huck outright in florida and then steamrolls on super tuesday and becomes the nominee and then president or makes it to the final two on super tuesday against mccain and comes up a little short, but graciously accepts the VP spot on the ticket, knowing that mccain is likely done after 1 term, setting him up to run a campaign far bigger, better funded, and better prepared as the vice president in 2012 against the clinton-less democrats. the latter happens by mccain turning a NH win into a steamroller that beats huck in SC and outlasts rudy on 2/5.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:00 am
i still feel that romney is rudy’s only true threat, and a loss in NH should finish that threat off for good.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:00 am
Everyone who isn’t the leader is “ruining” the chances of the leader. So? What’s your point?
January 6th, 2008 at 1:02 am
Sigh,
If only things had gone according to plan.
George Allen wins big in Virginia.
US wins decisive victory in Iraq.
George Allen cruises to GOP nomination.
George Allen/Jeb Bush edge Dems in November.
WE can only dream.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:03 am
John S.,
They are all flawed. But Mitt is the most flawed because he is not electable in the general (I am not going to say it but you know what I mean).
We are going to get nowhere with 5 equally matched frontrunners duking it out for the next 8 months. This thing will resolve quicker if we just had 4 and if he didn’t have a self-financer putting the fear into the big donors of wasting their money.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:03 am
The only thing that bothers me about Rudy’s strategy is that he isn’t being vetted like the others. He’s not going through the fight early enough, so that by the time he wins (assuming that happens), it’s more through default than through the process. It’s a big risk for the party, and Rudy himself, to take, and could hurt us in November.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:04 am
Mitt doesn’t have to win NH. There are too many candidates for anyone to get enough momentum to finish off the nomination. Ideas are still going to matter when we get to South Carolina, and Mitt will still have enough support (and money) to challenge Huckabee and McCain for the win there. Plus, he should have wins in Michigan and Nevada as well.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:05 am
One possible plus for Guiliani staying out of everything until around Michigan, is that when he re-enters the process, America has been hearing all about the negatives of Mike, John, and Mitt. Rudy is getting a pass right now on his downside. With him out of the picture, will only a couple of weeks before 2/5 be enough time to expose his negatives? By then everyone will be fed up with John, Mitt, and Mike and see the Mayor waiting in the wings. Like Mike in Iowa getting the pass by the evangelicals and overlooking his negatives, will america turn to Rudy for stability in the primaries? Just food for thought, and not based on any serious grounds other than my curiosity.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:05 am
“Either McCain or Romney will be functionally out of the race after NH.”
Dream on. Is McCain functionally out because he finished 4th in Iowa? Is Rudy functionally out if he finishes 4th in NH? Romney will finish in the top 2 in Iowa, New Hampshire and Wyoming.
“Then it’s the NH winner v. Huck in Michigan and South Carolina”
Tell that to the people in Michigan and South Carolina. You and others don’t seem to understand how momentum works.
You get momentum so you can raise money to win the next primary. The people in South Carolina couldn’t care less about who won NH. But they do care about the ads playing in front of them 24/7 about candidate so and so who supported amnesty. How those ads are payed for does not concern them. McCain is broke, Huck is broke, Romney can keep writing himself checks until the last primary in June.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:06 am
nowandlater. . .Once again, please explain why Romney gets singled out as the one who must drop out, when you keep saying they are all equally matched frontrunners. Why is he the most flawed? Why is a five-man fight so bad but a four-man fight, specifically without Romney, ok for you?
January 6th, 2008 at 1:06 am
Nowandlater
They are all flawed. But Mitt is the most flawed because he is not electable in the general (I am not going to say it but you know what I mean).
I’m not sure I do, but your post makes so much more sense if you insert the name Huckabee.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:06 am
Mitt’s self financing has prevented the bulk of the Gop donors to rally around a candidate even if they win a state like Iowa or New Hampshire.
Huckabee after Iowa’s win is only getting about 1/5 of the money a winnner would normally get from that win.
Likewise, if McCain wins New Hampshire, he is not going to get the big boost in dollars because the donors are scared to rally.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:07 am
problem is guys we dont have just 1 guy as the leader. Its not like the dems, obamas fast becoming the leader, but HUck our IA winner is not at all acceptable to the majority of non HUck supporters.
So we battle a war of attrition. The guy with the most $$ wins that. Right now thats either Rudy or Mitt. If Mitt gets momentum then Mitt wins, If Mitts stumbles then Rudy wins.
Look the reality is Jmac, Fred and Huck have very limited funds to fight too long. I dont see a ton of Money going to jmac if he does win NH, just too marginalizing a figure and I really dont think he did himself any good tonight. Huck and Fred no $$ either.
In a war of attrition it is Rudy or Mitt
January 6th, 2008 at 1:08 am
This should be a no-brainer. In an election year where Dems outraise us 2-1 (thanks to John McCain I might add), we have a super-smart, attractive, articulate candidate with limitless resourses and an unmatched resume of success and he can’t win the General (because of you know what). Are we stupid?? Shouldn’t Romney be the obvious choice, if only for his ability to self-finance and compete with Democrats?
January 6th, 2008 at 1:09 am
nowandlater. . .Check your numbers. The vast majority of Romney’s fundraising, according to the last official reports, came from donated money, not self financing. If that’s what you’re basing your opinion on, then there are several others who should be dropping out before Romney.
And could it be, just maybe, Romney is raising money because his supporters actually like him? Nah, couldn’t be.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:09 am
Nowandlater,
Just because your guy has no $$ support doesn’t mean that the leader with $$ should drop out. Huckabee is the reason Mitt didn’t sweep Iowa. Who is in 2nd place right now in NH? Is it Huckabee or Romney? Who just won Wyoming? It’s looking like Iowa was a fluke for the Hucksters.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:10 am
A four man fight without Romney means that win someone wins Iowa or New Hampshire they are rewarded with a huge infusion of cash by GOP donors. With Romney in the mix, a winner of these states are only getting 1/4 to 1/5 of the typical amount. Mitt’s is wielding his wealth as weapon which he could use in an attrition fight. Drive his competitors costs through the ceiling and keep the money guys scared from donating.
Mitt needs to drop out so that we can have a fair election not driven by a self financer, but the people and the party activists.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:11 am
#114 Its not Mitt’s self-financing that’s depressing donations. Its McCain-Feingold and a front-loaded schedule. Most high money donors are already maxed out. Oh, yeah, and Bush and McCain tried to sell us out with open borders and amnesty. Donors have long memories.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:11 am
nowandlater. . .I give up. There’s no way to argue with logic like yours.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:12 am
DaveG, hard to predict. The fundamental is that Rudy doesn’t win with both Mitt and McCain in the race.
He could beat either with 55%+ in a 2-man race.
But in a 3-man race he has a very hard time getting to 35%. Why? Too many of the voters he needs to beat Mitt with prefer McCain on foreign policy. And too many of the voters he needs to beat McCain with prefer Mitt on the executive competence and economic conservativism PLUS the “3 legged stool.”
January 6th, 2008 at 1:12 am
Exactly, Mitt’s strategy of attrition through dollars is forcing a choice of Rudy or him on us.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:12 am
Hence the situation Rudy is in in NH. Although that’s magnified by special factors Mitt and McCain have in NH.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:13 am
Also, regarding Mitt sticking in, won’t his Q4 numbers be public knowledge sometime in January? Won’t everyone KNOW he’s dumped $40+ million of his own money into the campaign at that point?
January 6th, 2008 at 1:14 am
Nowandlater,
As soon as your guy loses and drops out who are you going to support?
January 6th, 2008 at 1:15 am
120,
Yes, it is primary were all the candidates are going to be running on fumes. And he who has cash can win it.
Actually, it’s a scary thought but Ron Paul could rack up some delegates if he waits at the right moment with his bank account. Yikes, I have even consider that. That would decimate the party!
January 6th, 2008 at 1:17 am
I will support the eventual nominee. Even Mitt Romney, but the only loyalty I have right now is to stop Mitt Romney ASAP. Any candidate that can stop him will serve my purpose.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:17 am
Metro,
The new buzzword out of Romney, Inc. is “change.” It looks like they may be done trying to con values voters, and talk of stools is getting them where they need to be. Having noted the success of Obama, Romney is now the “change agent.”
The guy is so transparent he is a parody of himself.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:18 am
In my opinion I don’t think anyone needs to drop out. The chips will fall and by February 5th we’ll have the leader. Either Mike or John will be out by then as the public will speak for one or the other. If Fred doesn’t win he’ll be out. Rudy will hold a lot of delegates taking some big states. The ones without delegates will drop out at that point. Mitt’s money will keep him in until Feb 5th, and he hasn’t gotten enough delegates he will drop out.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:23 am
Nowandlater,
Your logic applies exactly to your guy Huckabee, if it weren’t for Huckabee we would have a clear front runner with Mitt Romney having swept the first two states IA and WY. Give it up Mitt is not dropping out.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:24 am
MWS, of course. What a creature.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:25 am
MWS,
Everyone has to market themselves. Do you think Huckabee is “floating the cross” to New Hampshire voters? By the way, I just invented that term to mean “overtly displaying your religiosity to appeal to religious people”.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:26 am
nowandlater. . .I could respect your opinion of Romney if it was based even a little on facts. But you haven’t given any yet. You can substitute anyone’s name in for Romney in all of your posts and they would still mean the same thing.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:31 am
With all the transparency from Mitt, one positive one could take from him though is he has put forward a lot of statements about what his plan would be if he was president. Basically tying him down to what to expect from him. Things like penalizing employers for hiring illegals, letting under 200,000 go tax free on their savings, giving states federal money to help with state health plans and unregulate health care in the states, etc. Obviously getting congress and the senate to work with you is another story, but any change from his platform would be career suicide and I doubt a businessman like him would do that. In looking at the candidates, I actually stopped long enough to read his 68 page document for what he would do as president and at least it appeared to give some substance. He may appear transparent, but he is either smart to tie himself down or real dumb with nowhere to turn if he gets the nomination.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:34 am
Case,
Of course he is smart, you don’t get to where he is by being stupid. That’s why my vote is for Mitt.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:37 am
John S. – From what I have studied of Mitt’s candidacy he is maybe too smart for the American people. He appears to have a very strong grip on the problems at hand and would unite strong teams for most of them based on his business background. But I don’t think that is where America is looking. Sensationalism, good feelings, etc. seem to be on most minds with Obama and Mike taking the first state.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:41 am
Case,
That’s a sad commentary on the American people. They don’t want a smart President?? Well I certainly do, if that’s the case and we end up with O’bama or Billary then I might as well move to Mexico. I’d say Canada but I hate cold weather, that’s why I’m in So Cal.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:45 am
Based on my studies of the candidates, I am not a Mike Huckabee supporter or a John McCain guy. I am optomistic that by the end of February 5th both will be out of it. I don’t believe America will settle in the end for a MIke Huckabee, but I still believe you will see a Rudy vs. Mitt battle in the end.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:47 am
Obama is going to be tough to beat. He is a feel good candidate that is new and fresh. EVen though his stances are awful, he exuberates “hope” and people are liking that.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:47 am
That would be great I could support either one of them. I would prefer Mitt, but Rudy would be my second choice.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:54 am
MWS – why don’t you go back and look at Romney’s announcement speech, and most of his speeches since–changing Washington (e.g., “I can’t wait to get my hands on Washington” has been a fairly constant theme. It was de-emphasized in the last month in Iowa (though not ignored) because his primary opponent was Huckabee, also an outsider.
Your constant attacks on Romney are growing old. How did you like Huckabee’s performance tonight? Will Huckabee leave NH with the big mo?
DO you honestly believe that Huckabee has any chance of winning the nomination? Do you care? Or will you be satisfied so long as the Mormon cultist is defeated?
January 6th, 2008 at 2:04 am
MWS
Is that why you hate Romney, because he is Mormon?
January 6th, 2008 at 2:10 am
I completely agree. Romney leads the delegate race and New Hampshire is important for a home run but a competitive 2nd place is good. The problem is that McCain is his competition in both New Hampshire and Michigan. A win (even if close) puts McCain in the driver seat for Michigan and the additional delegates in Michigan. If Romney is not first he needs to stay very close in both states.
January 6th, 2008 at 2:11 am
Is Michigan “winner take all”?
January 6th, 2008 at 2:15 am
#143 – John S.
That’s my guess because with MWS there seems to be a constant, irrational, seething hatred for all things Romney.
I don’t think MWS has ever been explicit about this, but I thought I would ask.
January 6th, 2008 at 2:19 am
Mike F
I see, so his argument isn’t based on logic. At least I know to discount anything that he says, like I wasn’t already doing that.
January 6th, 2008 at 2:19 am
It will be interesting to compare Huckabee’s performance in Iowa vs. NH with that of previous Iowa caucus winners.
If Huck goes from first to fourth, and Romney holds at second, should we yet declare that Huck is the more viable candidate?
I think it would be wise for Romney supporters to play up the delegate count as much as possible heading into Michigan.
January 6th, 2008 at 2:21 am
For some reason I’ve assumed that MWS was a woman, though I caught myself in #146 and kept it neutral.
January 6th, 2008 at 2:42 am
Isn’t a lot of this discussion irrelevant. Who cares what the pundits think, what the media thinks. This debate was on a Saturday night, the next one is on a Sunday night, the election is on Tuesday. Unless someone totally falls apart will this really change anything. I can’t imagine it doing so.
Like when the media and the pundits played up Huckabee’s press conference. Did that really change anything?
I think at this point, what’s done is done and it’s all about turnout and hoping for the best.
Fox could try and sandbag someone tomorrow, though.
At this point, I’ll predict a win by McCain, called fairly early, a la the Huck win in IA. I think Obama wins and all the focus is on him.
Romney and McCain fight on in MI, Huck and Fred go to SC, Rudy to FL.
Will know soon enough.
January 6th, 2008 at 3:24 am
jim,
In addition to the debate Sunday (which will be roughly the same style I hear, only sans Paul, which I think is a net negative), there’s the book attacking a mystery candidate on Monday. Since it’s a book, just the day before, I don’t think it has any effect though, no time to be digested, especially since only us internet political geeks even know its coming.
January 6th, 2008 at 7:24 am
Go Mitt!!
January 6th, 2008 at 7:25 am
are you kidding, fox could try? they will do all they can to knock somebody out. my guess, fred or romney.
January 6th, 2008 at 11:34 am
What happens if no one gets a majority going into the GOP convention?
—-
Good question, the top 2 vote getters would go head to head at the convention. Everyone will be giving ballots and they will go head to head. In that case the establishment candidate will likely win.