One of Team Romney’s increasingly desperate claims to relevance is the notion that Romney leads in delegate totals.
But as Jake Tapper points out, it just ain’t so.
UPDATE: I have had enough people tell me the AP’s totals were inaccurate that I am prepared to say this post is not accurate. I will leave it up rather than delete as part of my penance. *wipes egg from face*
January 10th, 2008 at 10:52 am
strange that there are so many conflicting thoughts on the actual delegate count.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#val=R
January 10th, 2008 at 10:52 am
another flip-flop??? Fox should ask about this tonight:)!
January 10th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Selective counting, they leave out wyoming.
January 10th, 2008 at 10:53 am
The funny part is that just a couple of months ago where Rudy supporters dared to mention anything about delegates winning elections, Romboosters just poo-pooed the thought and knowingly explained how WINNING (and this “silver medal” nonsense is not WINNING) IA+NH would create enough momentum for Dear Leader that delegates would not be an issue.
January 10th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Anyone see Letterman last night? Several times he went after Romney. Including poking fun at the large number of cliches in his concession speech with a counter.
Not good for Romney that he is seen as a target of comedic opportunity. Letterman has a boring tendency to repeat on the same target again and again.
January 10th, 2008 at 10:59 am
This is a stupid post. They posted the same thing on Redstate. He rescinded it.
http://redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/the_romney_camp_needs_to_do_something_quick
January 10th, 2008 at 11:01 am
nice try, Seems they have the calculation problem. CNN has the accurate numbers and Romney is up. Its amazing how much the MSM hates Romney.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Ever heard of Wyominig?
January 10th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Stupid post
January 10th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Realclearpolitics has Romney up WITH Iowa included. Even if you TOOK OUT Wyoming AND the superdelegates, Romney would only be behind Huckabee by 1. I used uselectionatlas.org which also had Romney ahead for delegates in another post. And there is no disputing he leads in popular votes right now.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Gary – Are going to own up to the fact that ABC’s numbers are wrong? How about an update on your post pointing out their error in tabulation? I think it would be irresponsible if you didn’t.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:13 am
“there is no disputing he leads in popular votes right now.”
in that case, it is even more sad that he lost two states.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Adam,
What’s funny is how Gomer comes in second in Ames and second in the Values Voters Conference and somehow he’s the big winner. Or when there’s no sign of McCain anywhere for months and all 25 MSM Newspapers endorse him and all of a sudden it’s his to lose in NH and even with their endorsements and anti-endorsements he only wins by 5 points. Remember that it’s all about perception and in this war it’s Romney v. the MSM and liberals outside the GOP, less than conservative candidates within the GOP, and the religious right namely Evangelicals. This is hardly a fair fight and so you fight on and the strategy changes.
Romney should wear Letterman’s and any other liberals attacks as a badge of honor. He should also be so lucky to get a fraction of the press Gomer and Grumpy get from the MSM. The irony here is that Grumpy and Gomer are getting a pass from liberals and are being challenged by the more conservative base of the Republican party and they and other so called Republicans are wearing these conservative challenges like a badge of honor.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:14 am
UA, sometimes you just don’t have the luck. He would have been better off winning one state and coming in sixth in another.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Gary,
Do your research before you post MSM garbage – now you have egg in the face just like them.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Can anyone offer a breakdown where Huckabee gets 31.
I’ve always thought it was a typo because it never made sense.
Please someone explain those numbers.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:19 am
I didn’t find that Letterman’s comedy was attacking or hurting Romney.
As a Romney supporter, I thought it was funny.
If people mentioned on late night comedy’s shows are in trouble, than every president from the last 20 years has been in trouble.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:22 am
The AP sent out the wrong numbers and most places including Foxnews.com followed like lemmings. You would think they would change it once they figured out they were wrong, but I suspect many of them, even at Fox news don’t want Romney to win. It is obvious by watching the coverage. Amazingly, CNN.com has the delegate count right.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Gary,
Once again you must be scared to death of Romney, because you keep on talking about him. You even used liberal MSM reporting to do it. I love that Romney has all of you shaking in your boots! You should be!!
January 10th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Fran,
There is no explanation for Huckabee having 31 other than that the AP put out the wrong numbers.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Brett,
Can we can it with the “scared of Romney” crap? Seriously! No one is scared of Romney. Not anymore. Maybe he can turn it around but objectively it’s not looking good for him right now. The reason for this post is to refute the Romney camp’s spin to stay relevant.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:25 am
It is very simple. You attack people you are afraid of. People think the MSM simply hates conservatives. However, Duncan Hunter is much more conservative than Romney. Does the media hate him? Of course not!! You hate people you perceive as a threat to your power. It is the same on the right. Conservatives hate the Clintons. If Obama wins they will likely hate him too, but I don’t believe conservatives hate Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich. If the media really believed Romney was finished politically, they would leave him alone. They obviously still fear him for some reason. Now multiple journalists have said he should stop spending his sons’ inheritance. That is a personal, vicious attack, and it shows part of the dislike is class-based. He is wealthier, more compassionate, smarter, and more handsome than most of these journalists could ever dream of being. They are so jealous of him they cannot control themselves and have resorted to lying about numbers. This whole thing makes me sick. Is anyone concerned Giuliani could be blowing his kids’ inheritance by remaining in the race despite coming in sixth in one state, fourth in another, fifth in national polls, and tied with Duncan Hunter for dead last in delegates. For that matter, I don’t hear them concerned about the inheritance of John Edwards’s children either…if he doesn’t spend it all on haircuts first.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Gary,
Are you going to turn into a Deroy, with a drive by post with no responses?
As has been pointed out above, Tapper needs to get back to grade school math and learn how to count.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:29 am
“Is anyone concerned Giuliani could be blowing his kids’ inheritance by remaining in the race despite coming in sixth in one state, fourth in another, fifth in national polls, and tied with Duncan Hunter for dead last in delegates”
I’m pretty sure no one believes the media care about anyone’s inheritance. It’s just a proxy to poke fun at the fact that Romney has spent like a drunken liberal with nothing to show for it.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:33 am
I have had enough people tell me the AP’s totals were inaccurate that I am prepared to say this post is not accurate. I will leave it up rather than delete as part of my penance. *wipes egg from face*
January 10th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Nice to see the numbers got fixed. Way to be fair and honest Gary. Pathetic Rudyites!
January 10th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Fox News still has Huckabee ahead:http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/09/national-delegate-count-tally/
January 10th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Adam,
Sounds like I struck a chord.
Plus, you are wrong again: “It’s just a proxy to poke fun at the fact that Romney has spent like a drunken liberal with nothing to show for it.”
He has alot to show for it. A delegate lead (as we found out in this thread.) A lead in the popular vote. Second place Rasmussen national (as of today). And, tons of people like you who are scared to death that he could derail your candidate!
I think he has alot to show for it considering no one knew who he was 12 months ago.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Thanks Gary. You did the right thing and have my respect.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
“Is anyone concerned Giuliani could be blowing his kids’ inheritance by remaining in the race despite coming in sixth in one state, fourth in another, fifth in national polls, and tied with Duncan Hunter for dead last in delegatesâ€
Mayor Giuliani is not a self-funder like Ross Perot, Steve Forbes, or Willard Milton Romney. Unlike Romney, the money Mayor Giuliani has, he raised. This is why Mayor Giulini’s funding—and every other candidate in the race, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Green—is an index of his political fitness as opposed to an artifact of his personal wealth. (The notion of a rich person attempting to buy his or her way into office on its face is a problem for me.)
What interests me is how precious little Romney gets for his personal wealth when massively spent on his ill-starred campaign. He has spent upwards of US$1 million per delegate so far. McCain has fewer delegates, but he has only spent about US$100 thousand for every one his his. Gov. Huckabee has spent even less. So who has the more sustainable, more cost effective, more efficent—and far saner—longer term strategy? Answer: not Romney.
I’ve been harping on the finely tuned string of Romney’s ROI problem since last summer. I note with no satisfaction at all that the popular press has *finally* discovered this issue.
As for whether I “fear” Romney, yes, I do. I fear what this strangely protean entity would do with his finger on a nuclear trigger. We all saw for ourselves how irrationally Romney behaved in Iowa—he could not let it go—he spent, and spent, and spent, and pushed ever frantically harder, and went ever more negative—how much did he spend of his own money?—no one knows, and the Romney’s aren’t saying, at least not until they’re forced to, which is after all the January contests are over. Well, imagine an obsessive personality like that at war, or involved in any other sort of conflict that requires tenacity TEMPERED with wisdom?
Call me strange or eccentric, but I do not want a president who cannot control himself, or one who strikes fear as opposed to promoting unity.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
“Pathetic Rudyites!”
If you want to know what’s pathetic, I quote Adam’s #4 above:
“The funny part is that just a couple of months ago where Rudy supporters dared to mention anything about delegates winning elections, Romboosters just poo-pooed the thought and knowingly explained how WINNING (and this “silver medal†nonsense is not WINNING) IA+NH would create enough momentum for Dear Leader that delegates would not be an issue.”
If you’re going to switch strategies, you folks can at least acknowledge you were wrong, and apologize for ridiculing a 1976-style, delegate-math campaign. Or you are shameless.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
#31 Metro,
I was one of the rombots that believed in the “early state momentum strategy” pushed by the Romney campaign. That being said, it seems they are now adjusting their game plan to the actual events that have taken place. At least they are not stubborn and are willing to admit they were wrong with that strategy. The problem with Rudy’s strategy is that if things don’t go according to plan he doesn’t have much time to re-evaluate. It’s like a football game, team Romney has game planned for their opponent(s) and decided at half time to adjust the game plan, fix it to what the current game situation is calling for.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
“At least they are not stubborn and are willing to admit they were wrong with that strategy.”
Where have the Romneys ever admitted they were wrong?
The e.g. Gage memo suggests victory heaped upon victory.
We have the delegates! We have the popular vote! We were wise to spend ourselves senseless and campaign so negatively—to so slime the other candidates—that it will take us months to manage the backlash!
Yuh-huh.
If Romney were a real candidate and not a self-funder, his mistakes and missteps would have doomed his campaign by now. But as Geraghty said in a Campaign Spot post, when you’re a self-funder, you get lots of second chances.
Here is the problem: you don’t get a lot of second chances as president. What is a man with a learning curve like Romney going to do us from the oval office?
January 10th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
#33 Civic
“Where have the Romneys ever admitted they were wrong?”
Just by changing strategy tells me the Romney camp is adjusting the game plan according to
the game. I don’t thing they actually said they were “wrong” but I do believe they recognize
the direction this race is going and they are re-adjusting.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Ray, Rudy’s tweaked his strategy, too. From outperforming low expectations in the pre-FL states to not contesting them. That’s a tweak, not a total flip to a strategy you once ridiculed.
Rudy’s got pockets of strength that have always made him the best candidate in a long, drawn-out fight, like the winner-take-all states of NY, NJ, CT and DE. And strength in a number of other delegate-rich coastal states.
January 10th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
I wonder if that is a dimension to Romney that the media doesn’t like. Do they just dislike self-funders? If so, it is a matter of class envy.
January 10th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
#35 Metro,
I for one never ridiculed Rudy’s strategy, it think it is a bit bizarre but it remains to be seen if it will work. If it works he is a genius! If it doesn’t…..well you probably know what kind of scrutiny he will face with is base of support. Heck, I’m a Rudy supporter the day Mitt drops out, until then I wish Rudy luck.
January 10th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
“I wonder if that is a dimension to Romney that the media doesn’t like. Do they just dislike self-funders? If so, it is a matter of class envy.”
Not class envy, but legitimacy. Think about Didius Julianus. What was the problem with Julianus wearing the purple as opposed to any other of the many usurpers who became powerful, effective emperors.
Question: What makes a government legitimate? Popular support, the confidence of its institutions etc. What makes a candidate legitimate? Popular support. An election is a demonstration of popular support, a more-or-less reliable indicator of legitimacy.
Part of what it means to stand as a candidate is to raise support from your supporters, another indicator of legitimacy. A candidate who self-funds, on the other hand, has less a claim to legitimacy as a candidate, as his or her spending or level of spending is *not* an index of poplar support.
Also: self-funding raises questions about our political class itself—how legitimate is it if super-wealthy elites can by their way into high office.
Self-funders make me extremely nervous. Where those who must raise support must answer to many and reach out to still more, self-funders are beholden to none but themselves, which is always dangerous. What was it Lord Acton once said? …
January 10th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Oops, oh well, we all make mistakes.
#38 I think the media HATES people who can donate to their own campaigns because it gives the media less control over the election (it’s harder for them to get McCain elected).
January 10th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Adam – is trying to refute Romneys claim THAT IS TRUE.
Adam – has a real problem that Romney is smart and has made alot of money.
January 11th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
#38. A pile of self-rationalizing babble, too bad it wasn’t around when Perot was on his ego trip.
#39. BRILLIANT POINT. The Media wants to be in charge of the election. They boost certain candidates, they dislike certain other candidates. Romney’s self-reliance and McCain’s media-reliance is exactly why McCain is beloved and Romney is not.
The media wants a guy who shows up on Comedy Central to let them know “hey, all that conservative talk. It’s just an act.” That’s what Huckabee did this week and that is what McCain has done for a long time.
“Anyone see Letterman last night? Several times he went after Romney. Including poking fun at the large number of cliches in his concession speech with a counter.”
All the more proof of the point that the media has an issue with Romney. Romney had the best speech, cliches or not, its the heartfelt things you say in that situation; while McCain’s speech was well-written but he had to read the words and it came off wooden and stale. He even stumbled on reading “thank you”.
All the points about the ‘wrong strategy’. It sure beats the strategy of *not* competing in the early states. Actually Romney was just a few thousand votes shy of pulling it off in both states, and Romney would have looked brilliant if he actually did pull it off. Yet he held McCain to well below his 2000 NH numbers, and he beat Huckabee in IA among all voters except those evangelicals looking for the candidate ‘who shares my religious beliefs’. Moreover, Huckabee got little ‘bounce’ out of NH.
This race is IMHO far from over. This is a decathalon not a sprint, and McCain and Huckabee both are much too flawed to simply take it away.