Dave Gaultier, Chris Lars and I exchanged a series of emails a few days ago on the subject of a brokered convention. I was about to post my thoughts on the subject, just when Anthony Dalke beat me to it. Now Chris has added some additional thoughts, so I will limit myself to a slightly different slant on it.
First, however, I should note that in the course of the conversation, Dave and I took a stab at projecting final delegate totals for the four current entrants, using Sean Trende’s calculator. We came up with very similar numbers.
Dave’s guess:
Romney – 1021
Santorum – 733
Gingrich – 291
Paul – 77
My guess:
Romney – 1011
Santorum – 657
Gingrich – 270
Paul – 180
Both of us put Romney at a point where he’d be close enough that a few deals could put him over. But there would be no room for error. If a loss in Michigan or Arizona led to further slippage in other states, he would probably be in a hopeless situation.
Which leads to the conclusion that a contested convention (to use the currently popular term), once considered a long-shot (I posted about the idea a couple months ago, using the header ‘Weird Scenario’), is now a very real possibility. The speculation, fueled by reports of comments by an anonymous ‘prominent’ Republican Senator, that a new entrant should be found if Romney continues to stumble, leads me therefore to put together a ranking of the leading possibilities to play the role of White Knight (is that a racist term?).
Christie: His endorsement of Romney is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it might antagonize other factions; on the other, given that he is popular with Tea Partiers, it makes him an ideal compromise. Christie recently vetoed a gay marriage bill in New Jersey, which should please SoCons. He could get in, obviously, only if Romney withdrew.
Ryan: If this blog is any indicator (often a dubious proposition), Ryan has a considerable amount of support. Like Christie, he appeared to come close to stepping in a few times. He is young, attractive, and has gained wider renown than is normal for House members because of his economic proposals. His nomination would mean the Republicans are betting all their chips on the economy.
Jindal: Not hobbled by an endorsement, since his horse is out of the race. Like Ryan, very young, but also very accomplished. Completed a successful term as governor and re-elected overwhelmingly; also confronted Obama on the oil spill. He might be the best Establishment candidate to add strength in the south, which would undercut the delegate totals Santorum and Gingrich look likely to roll up there. Acceptable to both social and fiscal conservatives.
Daniels: Was a popular choice early on, and many supporters have continued to dream. Has an outstanding two-term record to run on, including huge tax cuts, school choice and the recent right-to-work bill that attracted much notice on the right. His SOTU response got positive reviews. Like Ryan, his nomination would mean the Republicans are going all-out on the economy (although he has a strong SoCon record, his call for a ‘truce’ alienated some). Biggest drawback may be that he is seen by some as too much like Romney. Bias acknowledgement – Daniels would be my choice. Note: Said ‘no’ again today, for what it’s worth.
Pawlenty: Has endorsed Romney, so could get in, like Christie, only if Romney withdrew. Like Daniels, has two successful terms to run on. Also like Daniels, may be seen as too much like Romney. Pawlenty has a great back-story and blue collar appeal, but his biggest weakness is that he got in and went nowhere.
Thune: We’re scraping bottom here. I can’t think of much to say about the guy, which is an indicator of how fascinating he is. He did garner some interest in early 2011, however, and might be the choice if none of the above wanted in. He’d be a decent placeholder candidate if the goal was simply to avoid embarrassment and losses of congressional seats.
Huckabee: FiCons and social moderates would scream bloody murder, but might reluctantly accept him as more palatable (or at least less offensive) than Santorum, if things come down to a stop-Santorum movement. His strengths and weaknesses are well-known, so no need to review them.
Bush: He’d be a great candidate if he could run under an alias. A brokered convention would cause enough cries of fraud without nominating a Bush.
Palin: Has a strong and vocal core of supporters and a wide sea of detractors. Virtually no chance.
Unknown Unknown: In memory of Secretary Rumsfeld (who is not a likely candidate, as far as I know), and in the interests of having a number ten, we’ll throw in the possibility of somebody else.
February 20th, 2012 at 3:27 pm
Deleted — off-topic
February 20th, 2012 at 3:28 pm
Maybe this is a covert thing going on in the GOP primary and who better to be the white knight of the GOP than the current director of the CIA?
February 20th, 2012 at 3:30 pm
There isn’t going to be a brokered convention, so this is moot. In an alternate universe where there was, it would only be a question of whether the nomination went to Romney or Santorum. If the Romney and Paul delegates exceeded 1144, Romney would be the nominee. If the Santorum and Gingrich delegates exceeded 1144, Santorum would be the nominee.
No one else would come out of one. They wouldn’t get into the race, and none of the people currently in it would get out of it….so it will go to one of the putative front runners.
February 20th, 2012 at 3:33 pm
Under those numbers 117 unbound RNC delegates should make it safe for Romney comfortably.
February 20th, 2012 at 3:33 pm
All I’m going to say is that the Obama administration is jumping up and down with joy, they can’t believe how stupid this party has become, we have the most qualified candidate in years with polls showing that has the best shot at beating Obama. Yes, the Obama administration can hardly believe their eyes….Somewhere in the background they are cranking Al Michaels call of the last 10 seconds of the Miracle on ice….”Do you believe in Miracles…..YES!!”
Political Suicide….GOP…..POLITICAL SUICIDE your committing
February 20th, 2012 at 3:33 pm
All roads lead to Paul Ryan when it comes to the Brokered Convention Scenario.
Christie – endorsed Romney – Nope (Santorum supportes walk)
Jindal – endorsed Perry – Nope (Romney supporters walk)
Daniels – Truce on Social Issues..fair or not (Santorum supporters walk)
Pawlenty – endorsed Romney – Nope (Santorum supportes walk)
Thune – endorsed Romney – Nope (Santorum supportes walk)
Huckabee – Nobody totally walks out…but Huckabee would himself….does not have the fire anymore.
Bush – half of romney supporters walk…half of Santorum supporters walk.
Palin – endorsed Gingrich(kind of)(Romney supporters walk)
Brokered Convention
Ryan/Rubio 2012!!!
February 20th, 2012 at 3:37 pm
“If the Romney and Paul delegates exceeded 1144, Romney would be the nominee. If the Santorum and Gingrich delegates exceeded 1144, Santorum would be the nominee.”
Not necessarily. Candidates don’t “own” their delegates, save for the first ballot. And even then, it is as much the honor system as anything. Once a candidate releases their delegates (by dropping out), or if the first ballot fails to yield a nominee…then the delegates are free to vote for whomever they choose.
While candidates can certainly encourage their delegates to vote for someone else, there is no guarantee that they will.
February 20th, 2012 at 3:40 pm
It is In the interest of the USA now and for conservative voters to consolidate if they want to take the White House. A white knight will not be supported during the election as voters will tend to make the best with the current base of power, Obama. Romney or nothing. If he lost in the next few elections it is National election on a golden platter to Obama. Capice
February 20th, 2012 at 3:40 pm
Santorum has no organization in caucus states so while he did good in colorado and minnesota ron paul actually got more delegates than him. A lot of the time there weren’t santorum supporters there willing to be delegates at the next stage. We saw this in hillary vs obama where obama did better at the district and state conventions than at the first step of the caucus process.
Santorum is also not eligible for 9 delegates in ohio because he doesn’t have delegates in three districts that he could have done well in. He also isn’t eligible for 10 delegates in illinios. His ballot status in indiana is still in question and he is off the ballot in dc.
February 20th, 2012 at 3:41 pm
What gets me is every ones is screaming it’s to early and than they come up with this Idea of no one winning anything whats up with that!! Give it time I think It will come out as it should others in the other states have a say don’t you know.
February 20th, 2012 at 3:44 pm
Matthew Kilburn,
You are correct. many states dont’ even hold their delegates to their state winner in the first ballot….MN being one of them. Romney won the MN caucus in 2008..but all of their delegates went to McCain. It’s more of a free for all than many people think.
I did my guess on the delagtes with MI going to Santorum (added momenetum..no so much delegates)
I have the following
Romney 920
Santorum 853
Gingrich 240
Paul 109
I had a dificult time with CA & Illinois. I got Romney receiving the majority in both states.
February 20th, 2012 at 3:46 pm
mitch,
You are incorrect with MN. There will be many more Santorum delegates at the MN convention than Paul in March….not even close.
February 20th, 2012 at 3:47 pm
Romney/Rubio 2012
Or
Ryan/Rubio 2012
February 20th, 2012 at 3:49 pm
You also have 117 super delegates. Then you have florida which was stripped of 50 delegates, south carolina stripped of 25 delegates, arizona stripped of 29 delegates, michigan stripped of 30 delegates, new hampshire stripped of 19 delegates.
So the convention is in tampa and they aren’t going to let half the florida delegation sit. These are some of romney’s best states and could cost him 50 delegates in flordia, 2 in sc, 12 in nh, lets say 15 in michigan and 29 in arizona if he wins the state. That means the fight over sitting full state delegations instead of one half of them could cost romney 108 delegates in those states that were stripped of half their delegates.
New hampshire went second last time, sc went third, florida went fourt last time as well. Romney should fight stripping out half of their delegates if he needs them at the convention. These were the same states that usually go first anyway.
February 20th, 2012 at 3:51 pm
A contested convention is not the same as a brokered convention. They have opposite meanings. The convention only becomes contested if it can’t be brokered.
I don’t know how you came up with your numbers but they seem to be falling short of the 2,286 total delegates. You probably left out the super delegates. In any event, if your scenarios materialize we are looking at a Romney/Santorum ticket brokered in June.
If you are looking for someone who is not in the race to get the nomination they would have to get in now and start winning. This candidate will probably still fall short of the 1,144 delegates and then we would have a contested convention where this candidate would try to get more delegates to switch to him. Very unlikely to happen. All the candidates you listed are weaker than the ones currently running (that might explain why they are not running).
February 20th, 2012 at 3:52 pm
It’s time for the GOP to GET OVER IT already! I don’t want someone who has to be pulled or persuaded or drafted into running–what kind of POTUS would he/she be who said NO, then is drafted to be run? What kind of skeletons would come out of the closet in a candidate like that? We have the single MOST qualified candidate who WANTS the job, who was willing to work hard campaigning for many other candidates for YEARS to advance the cause of conservatism, and who has outlined numberous times his plan for getting the US back on track, turning around the economy, and serving for the common good for ZERO compensation for many years–the Olympics, as Gov of MA, and now as the best POTUS we will have in a very long time. And WHO do we waste our time on?? A succession of flavor-of-the-months with the lack of experience and/or a Washington insider-lobbying-get-rich-off-the-public-type-business-as-usual-psuedo-celebrity-pundits as candidates. The standard put forth is and should be “the most conservative candidate WHO CAN WIN.” I’m so tired of the purity tests, the wacko so-con nut jobs that guarantee Christmas will come in NOV for the Dem’s. I left the GOP to become an independent after Reagan because of the nuttiness of the GOP. And if the GOP is so insisting on making a statement of conservative purity than to choose the best candidate to go against Obama, and actually get this country back on track under conservative LEADERSHIP under a POTUS who has proven record of accomplishment, then the GOP deserves what it gets–a footnote in history of how to destroy a party, one nutcase candidate at a time.
February 20th, 2012 at 3:53 pm
Paul is getting people to sign up to be delegates for other candidates even in pledged delegate states where they would be free to vote for whoever they want on second ballot. This isn’t even counting caucus states where paul lost in minnesota but cleaned up in delegates. In colorado a lot of santorum people were dupped into picking paul people for delegates as well.
February 20th, 2012 at 3:53 pm
I have :
Santorum 893
Romney 738
with no RNC members allocated
this assumes that Gingrich stayed in till the end, the numbers shift dramatically toward Santorum if Gingrich leaves the race (especially if he left before Super Tuesday)
February 20th, 2012 at 3:53 pm
Take the brokered convention with this in mind from Yahoo. (fwiw)
February 20th, 2012 at 3:54 pm
Wassup?
Hung Convention 2012!!
February 20th, 2012 at 3:55 pm
“Romney/Rubio 2012″
McDonnell, but yeah…
February 20th, 2012 at 3:56 pm
#16 OKC Mom for Mitt
Bravo!! Best post of the day
February 20th, 2012 at 3:58 pm
The longer this goes on, the more I wish Pence would have taken his shot. I prefer Romney, but Pence would have been an ABR that I could have settled for. Instead we’ve got Romney and nut jobs hell bent on getting Obama 4 more years.
February 20th, 2012 at 4:00 pm
#23 they weren’t nut jobs, they we all good candidates that Romney smeared with his millions to make you beleive that they are nut jobs
February 20th, 2012 at 4:00 pm
Oops:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73084.html
February 20th, 2012 at 4:01 pm
The worst would be a scenario of gingrich and santorum delegates putting the number over 1144 then you would have newt as VP. A santorum/gingrich could be the result.
Unless it is very close involving paul delegates or fighting for full state delegation wouldn’t this just be decided before the convention.
Gingrich and Santorum could get together in late june after all the state conventions for caucuses and primaries are done. This could happen by just putting newt’s unpledged caucus delegates and super delegates in santorum’s column. Most pledged delegates are also going to be for the candidate. Even though they will have to vote for one on the first ballot if they know how they will go the second ballot they won’t wait months for the charade to take place and it will be decided in late june instead of august.
Waiting to the convention is tricky. This isn’t 1976. Now you have obama raising a billion and ballots now go out 45 days before the election in late september. The RNC doesn’t raise 28,000 per person until they have a nominee. It isn’t realistic to have a nominee then raise all that money from late august to late september when voting starts. Unless it is extremely close it would be settled in late june.
One area organization could hurt is that in tennessee santorum has no delegates so the state party will pick them. Newt got 35 of the 44 delegates in tennessee. Will the state party’s delegates be more conservative and more to play by the rules. Hard to tell.
February 20th, 2012 at 4:02 pm
Can you say President Scott Walker?
February 20th, 2012 at 4:03 pm
#26 I actually think that is the most likely scenerio at this point (Santorum/Gingrich). Gingrich would add gravatas to the ticket.
February 20th, 2012 at 4:04 pm
If it’s a brokered convention, it may be a Romney/Rand Paul ticket because Ron Paul will be the king maker.
February 20th, 2012 at 4:05 pm
Ron Paul wont be the king maker because Romney wont even be close to 1144
February 20th, 2012 at 4:07 pm
The combination of all the extra proportional states + the states that were penalized half their delegates, has made it sort of tuff to get to 1144 for anyone
February 20th, 2012 at 4:08 pm
28. Lol! Your either joking or eating paint chips.
February 20th, 2012 at 4:09 pm
If one candidate gets both clear popular vote and delegate majority, that candidate not winning the nomination would cause that candidate’s supporters to stay home. Minimizing damage is also important factor, really Santorum or Gingrich 2012 is worse for GOP than Buchanan 1996, and I hope most important GOP leaders realize that, and that Romney still has the best change to stop Santorum or Gingrich nomination.
February 20th, 2012 at 4:09 pm
A Santorum/Gingrich ticket would lose 45 states.q
February 20th, 2012 at 4:10 pm
Smack1968 Says:
February 20th, 2012 at 3:46 pm
mitch,
You are incorrect with MN. There will be many more Santorum delegates at the MN convention than Paul in March….not even close.
====================================================================================
Santorum won, but he didn’t have delegates in place, and so many of the caucus sites that santorum won, where Romney Supporters.
February 20th, 2012 at 4:10 pm
It is LUDICROUS to be anticipating a brokered convention this early in the process. We have a LONG way to go and every win or loss affects the next race in some way.
You just can’t project enthusiasm or lack, thereof, on so few states.
But, if you look at it, Mitt has a huge percentage of the delegates so far AND, has had over 50% of the popular vote.
I firmly believe all this talk in the media is an effort to become self-fulfilling prophecy.
It’s not going to happen.
So let it be written. So let it be done.
February 20th, 2012 at 4:11 pm
Found this article about MI, and I agree with it:
February 20th, 2012 at 4:12 pm
This list is bogus. If Romney gets over a 1000 delegates all he is going to do is tap Ron Paul and hook him up with a nice cabinet position or his son Ran as the VP slot. No candidate that has over 90% of the delegates is going to allow anyone to just walk in and take them away.
February 20th, 2012 at 4:13 pm
16. What you said. The White Knight is right under our noses and the fringe of the party are too blinded by their pastors to see it.
February 20th, 2012 at 4:20 pm
Can I point out…
Santorum needs to hope he wins MI, and WA, and OH. Because unless he can pull off something impressive, he might have to himself fend off a surge by Gingrich after Super Tuesday.
After Super Tuesday, we have: Kansas (Santorum?), Alabama/Mississippi (Newt), Hawaii/American Samoa (Mitt), Missouri (??), Puerto Rico (Mitt/Newt?), Oregon (Mitt), Illinois (Mitt), and Louisiana (??).
I say Missouri is a toss-up because it will probably be contested this time. Then we have a string of more moderate contests and Southern states.
February 20th, 2012 at 4:22 pm
If the delegate numbers are as suggested in this FPP, then doesn’t Romney just need to strike a deal with Ron Paul?
February 20th, 2012 at 4:24 pm
40
Mitt is a shoe-in in Puerto Rico. It’s WTA with 23 delegates, so it’s not insignificant.
As for Santorum, all he has to do to put Noot out of the race is:
(1) Win Michigan
or
(2) Win Washington state to bolster his case leading up to Super Tues.
If he does either, he will head into Super Tuesday with either a lead on Mitt nationally or a very close second. In that case, he beats Noot in every state on Super Tuesday except maybe Georgia. And at that point, Noot is effectively done.
February 20th, 2012 at 4:24 pm
#7 “Candidates don’t own their delegates”
That only applies to most of the delegates that Santorum won thus far. The caucuses in IA, CO and MN are non-binding. At the state convention they might all decide to support a different candidate (like they did in 2008). Emphasis on state convention. This scenario would still not lead to a brokered or contested convention in Tampa.
February 20th, 2012 at 4:25 pm
The problem with the white knight scenarios is that they’re usually written by (for lack of better term and with apologies to Teledude or Tex) the beard scratchers. That is political junkies who don’t like Romney and are just hoping for some sane non-Romney to save the party. Well the problem with that is, the Romnots that actually show up in the polls; are an entirely different species than the ones that show up on R’42012 or on some T.V. talk-show. They have bounced from Donald Trump, to Michelle Bachman, to Rick Perry, to Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich two or three times, and finally Rick Santorum. All the beard scratcher approved candidates like Jon Huntsman and Tim Pawlenty (shoot, even Buddy Roemer would be better than most of that list and he never even got to 1%) never got past the 1% mark. Those opining for a white knight are something like the father of a troubled daughter, who keeps dating bad boys. He keep trying to set up the daughter with a nice boy, assuming it must be that she just hasn’t found an interesting nice guy, not wanting to face fact that the daughter likes the bad boys, because they’re bad.
February 20th, 2012 at 4:27 pm
“If Romney gets over a 1000 delegates all he is going to do is tap Ron Paul and hook him up with a nice cabinet position or his son Ran as the VP slot.”
Thats repulsive. Nepotism, really? And mortgaging away the future of our party by setting up Rand Paul, and all his libertarian flunkies as the heir apparent?
If Romney goes into this with a few-hundred delegate lead, the Super delegates will step up, and even if they didn’t, I really doubt enough extra delegates would jump behind Santorum – who will have considerably fewer actual votes. It would cause Chaos.
I’ll also point out – Gingrich has previously praised Romney. His #1 priority is to stay relevant and get something good for himself, not necessairily stop Mitt. Don’t be surprised if Gingrich took the opportunity to look like a kingmaker/uniter, and back Romney.
February 20th, 2012 at 4:30 pm
28. Killjoy Egomanic Gingrich would NEVER be vice president. He wouldn’t even settle for president of the moon colony. Lucky for Nooot he can still suckle his vegas sugar daddy. Other wise, he would be back selling books right now. Maybe he’s still selling books? He should have tried to sell more books in Virginia.
February 20th, 2012 at 4:30 pm
One thing has become very clear to me–there are some powers-that-be who want one thing and one thing only–that the K-Street gravy train keep flowing and it doesn’t matter to them who or what party has the bully pulpit as long as the gov’t $$ spigot flows right into their bank accounts. And the deficits and national debt and the burden on the taxpayers for many generations to come be dam**ed.
February 20th, 2012 at 4:31 pm
MassCon,
Gingrich could also pull out Tennessee. If he does, thats a healthy chunk of delegates between GA and TN, with and other pair of favorable Southern contests right around the corner.
If Santorum loses Michigan, where he once led by double digits, I think people will ridicule him – because it will have been the second time he got a major boost, and couldn’t keep it going or overcome the organizational advantage. And with all the defense Santorum has had to play (courtesy of his own mouth)…well, its not like he couldn’t fall back to earth. hard.
February 20th, 2012 at 4:33 pm
“there are some powers-that-be who want one thing and one thing only–that the K-Street gravy train keep flowing and it doesn’t matter to them who or what party has the bully pulpit as long as the gov’t $$ spigot flows right into their bank accounts”
What is this gibberish. What “powers that be”? The only group with a financial stake in dragging out this race is the media – which is why they pimped all the not-Romneys. Beyond that, I have no idea what you’re going on about, except that it sounds like one of the conspiracy theories the Paulites spin.
February 20th, 2012 at 4:33 pm
#40 Kansas (Santorum easily), Alabama/Mississippi (toss up Santorum/Gingrich), Hawaii/American Samoa (who knows), Missouri (Santorum huge), Puerto Rico (who knows), Oregon (toss up Santorm/Romney), Illinois (Santorum huge), and Louisiana (Santorum huge).
February 20th, 2012 at 4:34 pm
48
Gingrich has no shot of edging Santorum in Tennessee if Santorum survives Wednesday’s debate and wins Washington. Just watch. Gingrich does not own the South and the delegate math is there for Santorum to win the nomination by winning the South and I could see it happening if things go his way.
February 20th, 2012 at 4:35 pm
The washington state caucus is terrible timing. It used to be half primary but the dem governor probably wanting to hurt romney said there weren’t the funds and they had to have a caucus.
So the washington state caucus will be march 3 only three days before super tuesday. So even if romney wins michigan and arizona the MSM will having screaming full page headlines of santorum’s glorius one percent registered voter turnout win in the caucus three days before super tuesday.
After all the MSM made feb 7th of two caucuses and a beauty contest out to be like it was super tuesday.
It is also annoying knowing that romney would win a primary in washington state but caucuses are dominated by the limbaugh crowd.
February 20th, 2012 at 4:37 pm
“Gingrich does not own the South and the delegate math is there for Santorum to win the nomination by winning the South and I could see it happening if things go his way.”
MassCon, why do you even waste your time here then? You don’t like Santorum, and you don’t like Obama. Yet you’re convinced Romney isn’t going to be the nominee, and that Obama is going to win re-election, and you regularly subject the entire thread to your prophet-of-doom thinking.
If you’re so convinced things aren’t going to work out, why don’t you save your time and take up painting?
Sorry if this is a rant, but I’m sick of people who walk around with rain clouds hanging over their heads.
February 20th, 2012 at 4:38 pm
I really don’t know what’s worse, killjoy’s delusional optimism, or your constant pity party.
February 20th, 2012 at 4:38 pm
#51 I agree Santorum takes Tenn easy with a huge 20+ point win over Romney
February 20th, 2012 at 4:40 pm
53
I’m not walking around with a rain cloud over my head. I’m observing things objectively as I ALWAYS do. When things looked good, I made it clear. When things are going bad, I’m honest about it. If you can’t put up with my honest opinions, that’s your problem, not mine. I very much enjoy talking about this race and this country, and there’s no reason I should give up on it no matter what happens.
February 20th, 2012 at 4:41 pm
53. Yeah, Matthew, I was kind of wondering the same think MassCon has been a little schizophrenic, lately. Praising Mitt in one post and predicting his defeat in another.
It’s so very early in the process and I just don’t see how anyone can be overly confident or overly discouraged at this point.
February 20th, 2012 at 4:42 pm
49. Santorum and Gingrich have made millions as “consultants” not “lobbying” under the present legal definitions set into law by their clients and friends, but peddling influence all over Washington, as have other former members of Congress. Is it ANY wonder that the budget deficits have exploded just as the influence peddlers’s business has grown? THAT’s what I mean. I don’t agree with a lot of what Ron Paul says, but I’m happy to say that Tom Coburn of OK represents me, and Coburn has fought this kind of back-office crony capitalism for years.
February 20th, 2012 at 4:43 pm
57
I can’t understand the logic there. So you’re only a Mitt fan if you pretend things are going fantastically?
February 20th, 2012 at 4:46 pm
52:
Washington state LDS level is over 50% higher than in Colorado when compared to GOP population, even there it was almost enough to make it, Santorum doesn’t have ths time Florida Nevada skipping advantage which allowed him to spend more time at caucus states.
February 20th, 2012 at 4:49 pm
57
But quite a few posters and talking heads have been saying it is Mitts race to lose.
And I think that schizophrenia is contagious. At least in the political arena.
February 20th, 2012 at 4:49 pm
IMO if none of the candidates get the magic 1144 delegates they ought to compromise and have the one with the most earned delegates as the nominee and the one with the 2nd most earned delegates as the VP. I use the word “earned” in the event that Paulbots try taking over.
February 20th, 2012 at 4:49 pm
I think some folks are overstating Santorum’s support. It’s possible that if he loses Arizona, Michigan, and Washington… He could be a wounded duck all over again like he was a few weeks after Iowa.
Now I know it isn’t a sure thing that Mitt wins Arizona, Michigan, and Washington. But the polls and Intrade suggest that could happen. And if it does, Santorum could be in real trouble in places like Ohio, Alaska, North Dakota, and perhaps OK/TN/GA.
February 20th, 2012 at 4:54 pm
Once again, the board is filled with Romney supporters complaining about the rules and nature of the contests (which everyone knew going in) and blasting anyone with the audacity not to support their candidate as “idiots”, the “limbaugh crowd” just “listening to their pastors.” Unbelievably condescending. Romney has consistently gotten less than 40% of the party’s support for the last 5 years. If you think 60% plus of the party are a bunch of ignorant bible thumping yokels, then go form your own party. I don’t think Romney supporters are just a bunch of ignorant, amoral, heartless capitalists, or wacked out Mormons. I think they’re just people with a different set of priorities and core interests. Honestly, I sometimes think Romney supporters have taken a page from the Obama elitist arrogance “we know what’s best for the little stupid people.”
As for the post topic, if we have a brokered convention what we need is a candidate with broader appeal than the current crop. I’ll repeat a question I asked once before and no one answered. Personal preferences aside, what Republicans do you think have the best chance of uniting the party, and satisfying both fiscal and social conservatives? I think Jeb or Rick Perry (notwithstanding his desperate “vulture capitalism” tirades). After that I have no clue but people like Palin on the one hand and Christie on the other aren’t the answer.
February 20th, 2012 at 4:55 pm
Washington State will not go to Santorum unles he were to win Michigan, If Romney wins MI and AZ as is the likely scenario, then he will win Washington State 4 days later b/c he will have ALL of the Momentum leading into the Caucus, also it will be held at 11 pm Eastern time on a Saturday night so, like the Maine Caucus’s, will probably not be all that closely watched and may not move the needle for either candidate that wins very much.
February 20th, 2012 at 4:58 pm
#60 And another thing, why is it ok to blast any non-romney fan as a bible thumper who listens to a snake handling pastor, and then turn around and tout how well Romney will do in states with lots of Mormons – are they just gonna listen to their pastors, but its ok because their pastors like your guy?
February 20th, 2012 at 5:05 pm
I have Romney getting 1,036. How many super delegates are there?
February 20th, 2012 at 5:06 pm
If Romney gets anywhere close to 1,000 delegates prior to the convention, the super delegates will step in to make the difference.
February 20th, 2012 at 5:14 pm
#63 “Santorum could be in real trouble in places like Ohio”
Santorum won’t even be on the ballot in 3 congressional districts there. It will be interesting to see what happens. He’s been spending a lot of time on Ohio, Michigan and Georgia, and might not win any of these states.
The debate will make or brake Santorum. He’ll have to do much better than he’s done in the past.
February 20th, 2012 at 5:15 pm
I just tried the calculator for the first time (so numbers were done on the fly), and came up with:
Romney – 1193
Santorum – 755
Gingrich – 98
Paul – 68
I assumed Gingrich dropped out at the end of March.
The problem isn’t going to be who wins. The problem is going to be whether the victory in the primaries is worth anything when it’s all said and done.
The party needs time to heal after a brutal primary like this one, and if things continue on this trajectory, that will be time we are not afforded. Which equals Obama’s re-election.
February 20th, 2012 at 5:16 pm
This navel gazing is amusing. Almost nobody knows anything about Ryan except his stance on entitlement reform which as it turns out is almost exactly the same as Romney’s, He also voted for TARP, not just said it was necessary but actually voted for it and has never been elected to a state wide office let alone a national office. He’s never run anything and his only private sector experience seems to be working as a marketing consultant in his family business.
But he is the White Knight to not only unite the party and beat Obama but run the most complex executive position in the world.
Why don’t we just let Obama run uncontested if we are determined to commit suicide?
February 20th, 2012 at 5:17 pm
I honestly dont know where people like #67 are coming up with Romney getting 1,000+ delegates. Even when I am being generous to him I can’t get Romney over 800. I think some of yall must be doing some of the big states wrong and giving all the delegates to Romney if he wins a close race in New York and California.
February 20th, 2012 at 5:18 pm
Keith, you mention Romney has consistently gotten under 40% of the party’s support (in a 4 to 8 person race). Can you name someone else who has gotten over 40% in the last 4 years (except McCain in the GE)? Better yet, can you name anyone who had more than 30% for more than a month?
I don’t like or agree with the thought that the nomination should just be handed to someone who did nothing to earn it. None of them except the group that’s running has raised the money needed or built the organization we need to beat Obama. And you think the way to make everyone happy is just to hand the nomination to someone who spent the last 12 months fishing while Santorum and Romney worked their asses off?
nope!!! no way. That isn’t going to happen nor should it.
February 20th, 2012 at 5:18 pm
Romney 1193 WITH Gingrich dropping out!?!
seriously some of yall are on crack. Santorum would blow Romney away nearly everywhere by 20-30 points if Gingrich dropped out
February 20th, 2012 at 5:19 pm
#73 yes.. Santorum just a week or so ago in multiple states
February 20th, 2012 at 5:21 pm
Killjoy- “yall must be doing some of the big states wrong and giving all the delegates to Romney if he wins a close race in New York and California.”
————————————————————————
aren’t those states and every state after April 1st a winner take all state?
February 20th, 2012 at 5:23 pm
Killjoy Says:
February 20th, 2012 at 5:19 pm
#73 yes.. Santorum just a week or so ago in multiple states
______________________________________________________________________
I’m talking about nationally, not in a couple of states. Of course Romney has been over 40% in several states too. Florida was 45%, New Hampshire was over 40%, Mass will be, so will Utah, Idaho, and several others. I am talking about nationally. I don’t think Santorum got over 40%, at least not very long. And he hasn’t been over 30% for more than a week or 2.
February 20th, 2012 at 5:23 pm
http://michellemalkin.com/2012/02/20/prominent-gop-senator-if-romney-loses-michigan-we-need-a-new-candidate/
“A prominent Republican senator just told me that if Romney can’t win in Michigan, the Republican Party needs to go back to the drawing board and convince somebody new to get into the race.
“If Romney cannot win Michigan, we need a new candidate,” said the senator, who has not endorsed anyone and requested anonymity.”
February 20th, 2012 at 5:25 pm
#76 no. They are winner take all by district </b? and since Santorum's strength lies in the rural area (that are far more numerous) he could actually lose the state but win the majority of the delegates by taking most of the rural districts
February 20th, 2012 at 5:25 pm
grr… messed up the html
February 20th, 2012 at 5:29 pm
Is it possible that with the Stakes so high that Rs are over thinking this election?
For me, the answer is starring us in the face and yet everyone is still running to and fro looking for the perfect candidate.
Why not a CEO?
We should hire some Hollywood producers to create a heavenly manifestation that shines down on Mitt.
The clouds part, and a ray of light shines on Mitt’s head just as he finishes his most impressive speech.
Rs need as sign from God.
February 20th, 2012 at 5:33 pm
#76 it’s easy when you are using the calculator mentioned at the beginning of this article to know if a state is purely winner take all “like forida” or if the delegates or awarded winner take all by district. When you look at the spread sheet the truely winner take all’s like Florida dont give you the option of assigning # of districts won.
February 20th, 2012 at 5:35 pm
some also give a set number of delegates to the winner but then assign the remaining by district
February 20th, 2012 at 5:38 pm
#73 You’re missing my point. Of course early on in a divided race everyone’s percentages are low. But a strong candidate eventually consolidates the support to win. By this point in 2008 McCain had 51% support over Huck and Romney (Romney had just dropped out). In 2000, Bush had 53% of the vote over McCain and Keyes. But Romney lost last time, and this time we’re almost to super tuesday and he is stuck in the 30′s. If he was going to consolidate support, it would have happened. He still might, but it seems less likely that it’ll be a burst of support that drives everyone else off. Instead, we’re likely to see others quit because they can’t win, and their support then shift to Romney by default. He still wins in that scenario but you can’t call him a strong, popular candidate, just the the one with enough resources to outlast a terribly weak field.
I don’t like the thought of had picking someone either. I hope it doesn’t come to that.
Curious that I posted my question twice about a candidate who could unite the party, if not this year then in ’16 and so far we have come up with nobody.
February 20th, 2012 at 5:38 pm
just don’t make any assumptions (I think this state is winner take all so… I think I will tell the calculator that Romney won all the districts. If you do that you mess up. Answer the questioin properly. How many districts in Califoria for instance do you think Santorum will win even if he were to lose a close race to Romney there?
February 20th, 2012 at 5:39 pm
78– DeMint?
February 20th, 2012 at 5:39 pm
#84 quote “and their support then shift to Romney by default.” the polls don’t support that, if Gingrich were to drop all the polls show nearly all his support goes to Santorum
February 20th, 2012 at 5:44 pm
so take California for instance… I gave California to Romney in a close race
Romney 40%
Santorum 38%
but then I gave Romney only 25 district win and Santorum 28
Romney then gets 10 for winning and an additional 75 for his district wins… but Santorum gets 84 for his district wins. Thus they end up with almost exactly the same # of delegates each even though it’s suppose to be winner take all
February 20th, 2012 at 5:46 pm
When you start imputing the numbers like that in the close races (even the ones Romney wins) and give Santorum as many or more district win because of his rural base of support, I don’t see any way possible that someone could get Romney anywhere near 1,000 delegates
February 20th, 2012 at 5:47 pm
Well whoever the “prominent Senator” is one thing we do know, he or she is not a Santorum or Gingrich supporter because neither has any Senatorial support. Pretty odd that two giants of the Congress have so little support from their former colleagues. It’s almost as if none of them want either one.
How could that possibly be given that they tell us endlessly how kickass they both were before they 1) gotten beaten by the biggest margin of any incumbent Senator in history and 2) resigned after losing the support of his Republican colleagues?
A real mystery, that one.
February 20th, 2012 at 5:50 pm
Killjoy,
McCain won California by 7 points in 2008… and swept every single congressional district.
The CD’s will not be as close as you are predicting. Whoever wins the state wins the vast majority of CD’s, even if the topline numbers are close.
February 20th, 2012 at 5:56 pm
2008 was completely different, McCain wasn’t fighting a battle with limited support in the cities against someone who had nearly all his support in the rural areas
February 20th, 2012 at 5:57 pm
For instance, I gave Romney 45 CDs in California and Santorum 8, with Romney claiming a 9-point victory overall. (So compared to the 2008 congressional district allotment, I was being generous to Santorum to give him those 24 delegates.)
February 20th, 2012 at 5:59 pm
Killjoy, take a look at the Iowa map from this year if you want more evidence of how districts shake out.
Santorum won by 34 votes. And he took over 2/3 of the counties in the state.
February 20th, 2012 at 6:01 pm
#94 yes… because Santorums support is in the rural areas. That is exactly what I would assume it to be
February 20th, 2012 at 6:03 pm
#81 why not a CEO? Sounds great, Rupert Murdoch ok? Trump? Perot? After all, Bloomberg was such a great improvement over Giuliani, that proves how much better businessmen are at running a government. This is the political equivalent of thinking Michael Jordan would be a great coach/owner – he was such a great player, such a great businessman, marketed himself and made many millions – surely that means he had the brains and instinct to run the show, no? Evidently not.
Romney’s whole campaign is centered around this idea that as a successful businessman he knows best how to improve the economy and create jobs (even though his job creation in Mass was abysmal). But that is all BS and we Republicans should know better. We don’t need some guy in the white house to pull some magic string or tweak some indicator to make the system work. The Government can’t “fix the economy” and it doesn’t “create jobs.” Lower taxes, cut regulations and cut spending. The market will handle the economy and create the jobs and wealth. Give me the candidate that can say that convincing, and can persuade congress and the American people to go along with it. We don’t need a freaking economist we need someone who can make the case and inspire people to believe it. I don’t think Mitt is that guy.
February 20th, 2012 at 6:06 pm
liberals and moderates tend to live in the cities along with their democratic friends. But the vast majority of districts are in rural areas where the very conservative Santorum voters live.
February 20th, 2012 at 6:09 pm
#94 actually Iowa makes my point exactly. Do you think if Romney had won by 10 votes that he would have suddenly magically won the vast majority of districts? or is it far more likely that he would of just picked up another 30 votes in some big city
February 20th, 2012 at 6:10 pm
So “very” conservatives live in rural areas, but “severely” ones in cities?
February 20th, 2012 at 6:12 pm
think of this as a general election with Romney playing the role of the democrat. Then look at a Bush 2000 map and you will see how things break down by district
February 20th, 2012 at 6:15 pm
here is a link
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm
that’s what a razor thin election looks like when one candidate is the city candidate and the other is a rual candidate
February 20th, 2012 at 6:20 pm
#96 Precisely. Romney worries me when he runs as the guy smarter than all of us who can make government solve all our problems.
That sort of thinking is where bigger more powerful government comes from. I want another Andrew Jackson type as President. I want someone who goes in gets rid of federal institutions and returns liberty to the states and the people.
Romney’s single term in Massachusetts showed he’s just as likely to take liberty away as to return it. Now the people of Massachusetts hate liberty and prefer protection from the nanny-state. Romney should have stayed in Massachusetts and not tried imposing himself on Republicans in the rest of the nation.
February 20th, 2012 at 6:28 pm
102
So do I, but who is that, exactly? Ron Paul, the dude who would lose to Obama by 20 points?
Oh, so BEFORE Romney, the people of Massachusetts just loved their Bibles and guns? Champ, Massachusetts almost voted against Reagan in 1984 when he won 49 out of 50 states. Massachusetts was close in Nixon’s blowout as well.
February 20th, 2012 at 7:06 pm
LMAO I just realized how satisfying it would be for Ron Paul to put Mitt Romney over the top, just to torment Matthew Kilburn.
February 20th, 2012 at 7:14 pm
#103 No candidate espousing liberty can win in Massachusetts. Romney twisted himself into a nanny-state pretzel for Massachusetts voters. Now he’s twisting himself into another pretzel for the general election. All I really know about Romney is that he wants to be President really really bad but he’s not articulated much of a reason to be elected besides:
1) Obama stinks
2) I’m a CEO who can solve problems
I suspect if Romney is nominated that there won’t be a Republican Party as we know it in 2016. How can a party be reduced to just running a vanity candidate (Romney) who has no compelling argument to be elected except that he deserve the Presidency and is smarter than everyone else?
February 20th, 2012 at 7:27 pm
105
The charge that Romney twisted himself into a nanny-state pretzel in Massachusetts is simply unfounded and based on a caricature developed by the money-grabbing flunky journalists in DC.
Present me with one single piece of evidence that Romney twisted himself into a nanny state pretzel, and I’ll go along.
And no, RomneyCare is not a nanny state solution any more than the status quo was. The fact is, in all 49 other states, those without health insurance can (and do) walk into emergency rooms and receive care at no immediate expense to them. So there goes that argument on your part. Provide me with one shred of evidence for your claim and we’ll talk.
February 20th, 2012 at 7:52 pm
#106 Should I believe you or my lying eyes?
Youtube is your friend. When the liberal rhetoric came straight out of Romney’s mouth I assumed he did it to curry votes from the nanny-state types in the far-left Bay State.
February 20th, 2012 at 8:03 pm
107
Okay then, let’s see a video in which Romney twists himself into a nanny state pretzel. I have not seen one, and I live here.
But if you’d rather not provide me one, I’ll stop, as I realize I’m irritating you.
February 20th, 2012 at 8:06 pm
#16: okc mom for mitt:
Well said! Only Mitt can win the Presidency, and you KNOW it, Killjoy and MassCon!! If either of the So-Cons gets the nomination, you can guarantee an Obama victory. Most Americans believe in the separation of Church and State, and a personal relationship with God. You know, render onto Caesar the things that are Caesar, and onto God…. Just like I don’t like Obama separating American with class war-fare, I don’t want like the Repubs separating them through Religion.
Santy is a sanctimonious hypocrite – his pandering to the right-wing makes me want to puke! The fact that Santy is trying to explain everything he has said over the past days shows that he is on the losing end. This has been a BAD week for him! Keep it up – show your true colours!
February 20th, 2012 at 8:14 pm
Beckie,
Oh, I know only Mitt can beat Obama. That’s why I support him so much.
February 20th, 2012 at 8:16 pm
24:
Santorum and Newt were never serious candidates.
February 20th, 2012 at 8:21 pm
Mitt Romney has his problem with lobbyists as well.
“For a candidate running against the entrenched interests of Washington, Mitt Romney keeps an awful lot of lobbyists around.
His kitchen cabinet includes some of the most prominent Republican lobbyists in Washington, including Charles R. Black Jr., the chairman of Prime Policy Group and a lobbyist for Walmart and AT&T; Wayne L. Berman, who is chairman of Ogilvy Government Relations and represents Pfizer, the drug manufacturer; and Vin Weber, the managing partner for Clark & Weinstock.
At least 294 registered lobbyists donated a total of at least $401,000 to Mr. Romney through the end of 2011, according to a New York Times review of federal disclosure records, while an elite group of 16 “bundlers,” representing interests as varied as Wall Street, Microsoft and the tobacco company Altria, gathered more than $2 million worth of checks from friends and business partners for Mr. Romney’s campaign.
Other lobbyists serve on one of Mr. Romney’s policy advisory teams, have hosted fund-raisers for his campaign or have joined the many influential Republicans whose endorsements Mr. Romney’s campaign has hailed. Among them are David Wilkins, a former United States ambassador to Canada who lobbies for the Canadian oil industry, and Stephen Rademaker, a former State Department official who lobbies for the defense contractor General Dynamics.”
“John M. Herrmann II, a co-chairman of Mr. Romney’s trade policy advisory group, is a lobbyist for Allegheny, a major steel producer whose products have figured in United States trade lawsuits against China. Mr. Romney’s platform calls for a more aggressive posture with China on trade, including more “punitive measures to deter unfair Chinese practices.”
Mr. Talent’s firm, Mercury Public Affairs, represents one of the largest coal producers in the country, Peabody Energy. That connection is not disclosed in a commentary that Mr. Talent contributed to Mr. Romney’s energy platform, which calls for increasing production of coal and oil and amending the Clean Air Act to exclude carbon dioxide from environmental regulation.
A number of Mr. Romney’s donors, including at least four of his bundlers, have lobbied for financial companies on the Dodd-Frank Act, which tightened Wall Street regulation. Mr. Romney has called for repealing the law.
They include Mr. Berman, who represents the Blackstone Group private equity firm. Blackstone’s founder, Stephen A. Schwarzman, has co-hosted major fund-raisers for Mr. Romney in New York and Palm Beach, Fla., and Blackstone employees donated at least $86,850 to Mr. Romney last year.
Mr. Weber began advising Mr. Romney on foreign policy in August. He is a lobbyist for the Council on Pakistan Relations, which has sought to protect United States aid to Pakistan as relations between the countries have soured.”
February 20th, 2012 at 8:27 pm
I just started to investigate the Trende calculator. I started to look at a few states and none of the first few states other than the complete WTA states like AZ are exactly correct. To get a correct calculation, you need to go to green papers and read the rules for each state. Most states are too complicated to put into a simple calculator and on some I think the calculator was just put together lazily. For example, in MI he has the wrong # of delegates per CD. It should be 2/CD x 14 = 28 plus 2 statewide with a 15% threshold. He has 22 total for CD delegates and then give 8 statewide and ignores the 15% threshold. So I gave Newt and Paul 13% each and they both got 1 delegate each and should have gotten 0. I think it’s a mistake to draw serious conclusions with this calculator. The other day I did calculations of my own with Santorum winning MI by as small margin and used the green papers for my calculations. I came up with Romney getting more than 1200 delegates. I’ll take a look at more states on the calculator.
February 20th, 2012 at 8:29 pm
Killjoy,
Maybe I’m missing something but…Congressional Districts refer to…Congressional Districts…no? And congressional districts are not counties. And rural vs. urban has precious little to do with it given that congressional districts are, by law, required to have roughly the same number of voters. Now what you will see is that in a Republican primary, there will be more votes in the CD’s which are conservative and fewer in the CD’s that are liberal. But this is not going to uniformly benefit any one candidate. Especially given that CD’s are, especially in larger states like California, composed of both rural, suburban, and urban areas. In fact, I’d lean towards thinking that in liberal states, where most CD’s are held by Democrats, Romney would be at an advantage relative to his popular vote share (though, of course, the opposite might be true in conservative states).
February 20th, 2012 at 8:33 pm
Sorry, MassCon – PLEASE accept my profound appologies! I meant to write econ grad stud!! You are one of the best defenders of Mitt – thank you, and keep it up!
February 20th, 2012 at 8:35 pm
115
Thanks, Beckie!
February 20th, 2012 at 8:41 pm
114,
Sometimes state legislatures will gerrymander CD’s such that 65% will be heavily democrat and the other 35% will be Republican (or vise versa). In fact most CD’s are in fact gerrymandered in one direction or the other and are “safe seats”.The Republican neighborhoods are not necessarily more liberal. They may if fact be very conservative areas. I know that Gingrich won the Clyburn district in SC that is 57% African American. The other 41% is white and not necessarily a more moderate group. They aren’t necessarily mixed in the AA neighborhoods. They are separate neighborhoods that are also included in the district. The same can be said of very conservative districts that may have Democratic neighborhoods that are included.
February 20th, 2012 at 8:41 pm
#114 well… in a week we will know for sure
February 20th, 2012 at 8:44 pm
#113 I noticed that on RCP it has Texas as proportional.. unless the victory reaches a threshold (usually 50%) but if that is true that Texas is winner take all if one person gets 50% or more.. than that also wasn’t factored into the calculator because I played around with it and gave more than 50% to Santorum just for kicks and it didn’t automatically award all the delegates to him. I am not sure what the “green papers” are can someone provide a link?
February 20th, 2012 at 8:48 pm
I think I found that green paper site… I have no idea how reliable that is compared to something like Real Clear Politics. It’s sounds very offical …
February 20th, 2012 at 8:51 pm
James from TX,
That’s true. I guess my first point stands (that more votes will be cast in a Republican CD than in a Democratic CD) but my second point (that in a liberal states the more liberal candidate might win more CD’s) could use some fine-tuning.
February 20th, 2012 at 8:51 pm
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/R-Del.phtml
It gets the information directly from the state parties and rules. It updates frequently. It is the most comprehensive site I know regarding these matters. I’m not sure where Trende got his info and how meticulous he was.
February 20th, 2012 at 8:56 pm
well if you ever take the time to update his spreadsheet, upload it to google or something
February 20th, 2012 at 8:58 pm
It would be nice to start by just uploading his spreadsheet and then just either allow editing or just have people submit comments for the changes that need to be made
February 20th, 2012 at 9:04 pm
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Akfa4IfAng9HdEVhWnRqbi1aTENnN3QzSGoteExQZ2c
try using this link, I haven’t started one of these myself before, so sorry in advance if I screwed something up. I made it editable to all
February 20th, 2012 at 9:12 pm
Oh course a lot of that can never be calculated with any spreadsheet. Most the caucus states are electing state or county delegates and then there is a county convention and then state and district conventions. Santorum may win beauty contest aspect of the caucus but does not have the delegates to even represent him. Paul and Romney are reportedly more organized and will pick up more delegates than can be calculated. Wyoming for example is done by county and then state conventions. The convention members are county committee persons who were elected in August 2010. The straw poll before this means nothing. There are a lot of complexities that con never be calculated. Many of these favor Romney and are not included in the calculation (delegate organization and conventions with RNC insiders). I also think the Trende calculation does not include the superdelegates listed at the bottom. Romney is winning these 18/1 over Santorum thus far (link below) and if enough publicly declare their intentions by June, then Romney can get over the top with the Bob and Dave estimates.
http://www.democraticconventionwatch.com/diary/4726/republican-superdelegate-endorsement-list
February 20th, 2012 at 9:22 pm
grr.. I can’t get it to copy the formulas over only the data
February 20th, 2012 at 9:33 pm
I give up, I can’t seem to copy the formulas over, I’ll let someone else do it
February 20th, 2012 at 9:40 pm
John Mark
#44
You see right through me.
February 20th, 2012 at 10:40 pm
#44 – John Mark,
Excellent analogy.
February 20th, 2012 at 10:48 pm
John Mark,
You’re right. Sort of. Look, I’ve resisted the Jeb! and Mitch! talk for precisely the reasons you’ve outlined. They’re beltway creations who we have good reason to suspect are as distrusted by the grassroots as Romney is. But Ryan isn’t that. There was a thread on Hotair last night, with a quote from Ryan’s Meet the Press appearance. Here were some early comments:
“I very much doubt any of the brokered convention hype will come to pass so this is really a moot point, but I never understand why such talk always brings up mentions of Jeb Bush or Mitch Daniels when this guy is out there with the ability to demolish lefty talking points into a pile of red dust on a daily basis.”
“we’ve got 19 year old kids getting shot at in Afghanistan
thanks for sitting this one out Rep. Ryan”
“he was on fire yesterday….
loved it!”
“If there is a brokered convention – I wouldn’t be shocked to see him come out of it as our nominee.”
“I am not giving up Ryan 2012!!!”
“I’d sign up for that. (in response to the above”
“This President has failed to lead and he needs to go away. God, I would pay top dollar to see Ryan and him Debate. Ryan would run circle around him
Run Ryan Run”
Hotair is still pretty much the flagship, grassrootsy conservative site. And they love Ryan. He’s in the trenches. He embarrassed Obama on health care and then again on the budget. He demolishes his appointees. Etc. It’s true that the TruCons want bad boys
February 20th, 2012 at 10:51 pm
But being a bad boy is not wholly and always about attitude and obnoxiousness.
February 21st, 2012 at 12:05 am
I do not see delegates going for anyone just on “principles” whatever it is for the month, not when we have a huge Obama machine steamrolling toward us. A brokered convention would end up, however we like it, with real earth movers meeting behind the door. This is when we would have an establishment candidate. I think in this case, they would be looking for someone who is the most organized, with the most fund, being acceptable to most and more. The only candidate that fit those criteria is Romney. This is why I wanted to avoid the brokered convention. I want the candidate that is voted for by the people, rather than being picked by those behind the closed doors. Until then, there is no such a thing as “establishment candidate!” After all, not one has defined who the establishment is.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:46 am
Since Sarah Palin didn’t want to do the hard work and run through the primaries, let’s just be nice to her and magically make her the nominee at the convention.
Then we can put her on a horse, push her out of the castle to go out gainst Obama, close the door, raise the draw bridge, and just get it over with…
February 21st, 2012 at 8:31 am
6. Smack, I am voting for santorum and a crazy socon and i would gladly support daniels. His actions (defunding PP!) speak louder than his words. Jindal would be near the top of my list though, probably a 1b to Huck.
34. A ticket with newt on it would lose 49 states, not 45.
109. If i hear one more person mis-quoting the Bible, I’m gunna go postal on this site. You are an idiot…..ever thought about the statement “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God”?? Like, for more than your own twisted purposes? GOD OWNS EVERYTHING…..there ya go. He can destroy a mountain in an instant, he can give and take a job without warning, he can cause calamity or blessing for a nation, etc. God owns it all. Jesus was saying give Caesar what he owns (which is nothing) and give God what He owns (which is everything). Get a clue.