« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The Race For The Remaining Delegates

By: pilgrim (Diary)  |  March 8th, 2012 at 03:50 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Below is a list of the remaining contests in chronological order, and the number of delegates remaining. Everyone needs to remove their rose-colored glasses, and that includes the supporters of Mitt Romney. Nothing is guaranteed, but there are some scenarios that are more likely than others. I agree with the political pundits like Dick Morris that it will not be in the best interests of the Republican Party to not have a nominee until September. I also believe we will know who our nominee is in July, but there are different scenarios that should be considered.

  • Kansas = 40
  • Guam = 9
  • Virgin Islands = 9
  • Northern Marianas = 9
  • Alabama = 50
  • American Samoa = 9
  • Hawaii = 20
  • Mississippi = 40
  • Puerto Rico = 23
  • Illinois = 69
  • Louisiana = 46
  • Washington DC = 19
  • Maryland = 37
  • Wisconsin = 42
  • Connecticut = 28
  • Delaware = 17
  • Rhode Island = 19
  • New York = 95
  • Pennsylvania = 72
  • Indiana = 46
  • North Carolina = 55
  • West Virginia = 31
  • Oregon = 28
  • Nebraska = 35
  • Arkansas = 36
  • Kentucky = 45
  • Texas = 155
  • California = 172
  • Montana = 26
  • New Mexico = 23
  • South Dakota = 28
  • New Jersey = 50
  • Utah = 40
  • Total remaining delegates = 1423

One interesting tidbit is how the Republican establishment has padded extra delegates into the five US federal territories. None of these 5 territories have any electoral college delegates, but they add up to 59 RNC delegates. Below you’ll find several different scenarios that I consider unlikely or likely to various degrees.

Mitt Romney wins 55% of the contests remaining = >1144 UNLIKELY
Rick Santorum wins 72% of the contests remaining = >1144 VERY UNLIKELY
Newt Gingrich wins 75% of the contests remaining = >1144 HIGHLY UNLIKELY
Ron Paul wins 78% of the contests remaining = >1144 EXTREMELY UNLIKELY


Romney wins 40% of the contests remaining and is 200 delegates short of the 1144 HIGHLY LIKELY
Ron Paul deals Mitt Romney his delegates to eclipse 1144 LIKELY
Newt Gingrich deals Rick Santorum his delegates to eclipse 1144 POSSIBLE


Anyone who has “inevitable” coming out of his mouth simply refuses to remove their rose-colored glasses. I do not pretend to be a great political analyst, and I am humbled by those who appreciate my thoughts on these matters.

Cross-posted at Unified Patriots

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Scope

    I have a few questions. In one of your scenarios you believe that if Romney comes up short by about 200 delegates, do you think Ron Paul will have at least 200 delegates to give away? He has his die hard supporters for sure, but he hasn’t won any states, and it gets increasing unlikely that he will win any. For those voting for Paul as a protest vote, such as in VA, I think that will start decreasing. Is it not so that anyone can release their delegates, but they are then not bound to vote for who the candidate asks them to?

    Florida and Arizona have awarded their delegates on a winner take all basis, which is against the RNC rules for 2012. If the delegate count gets close enough to do dealing, won’t the RNC require those two states to proportionally allocate their delegates to stay within the rules? While anything is possible with the RNC, I would think that Prebius who said he can’t award back the 1/2 delegate loss for going early, he can’t exactly say that I won’t break one rule, but I will break another one. Then again, the RNC, as you said, created 59 delegates out of thin air.

    If Santorum is leading Gingrich in the race significantly, would Gingrich release his delegates, and then ask them to back Santorum? Also, would they? According to a current Nate Silver article, he seems to believe that 25% of the Newt supporters, if he dropped out, would support Romney, but about 59% of them would back Santorum over Romney. He also believes that if Gingrich backed out, it would open up a possible path for Santorum, based on how he believes those voters will vote without him in the race. He based his analysis on the races that have gone so far, and picked up the patterns from that.

    If I knew that Gingrich and Santorum could work out a deal, to give the one leading in the delegates their delegates, I would be all in favor of both staying in the race and collecting what delegates they could. The fact that when one releases their delegates, and they are not bound by the wishes of that candidate, it would be best if Newt dropped out if he doesn’t outright win any of the Tues. races. If he stays in the race beyond then, with a not great showing in the southern states, he is in fact following just his inflated ego, rather than what is best for the conservatives who are direly opposed to Romney. At that point he will get much blame, in many quarters, for helping to elect a moderate for the nomination. He will have achieved Sheldon Adelson’s goal.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      They need to work this out.

      • honoraryintern

        …actually will pick. That only means Mittens. What was Newt’s deal to get the last 10 million? Is he an independent player or a puppet on Adelson’s string? If this all goes to Tampa can Newt commit his delegates or are they free agents? WSJ says the money was conditional, what are the conditions? Thoughts?

        • jamesm

          spelled out his relationship with Adelson.

          • honoraryintern

            ..is there an interview with Newt that outlines the ‘terms’, for lack of better understanding.

          • jamesm

            Here is the truth.

            Regarding your February 16th article: ?Santorum wants to ban gambling??

            I agree with Rick Santorum. I am in favor of the comment he made about destination casinos and I am, as he is, against any type of gaming on the Internet. You might also know I am not against Rick Santorum. I am in favor of Newt Gingrich.

            Sheldon G. Adelson

            http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/19/adelson-santorum-gambling-gingrich-romney-israel-obama/

    • jamesm

      If Gingrich drops out then Santorum will benefit going heads up against Romney. Santorum will most likely win more delegates than Romney from here on out. Unless something real dramatic happens, it will go to the convention. There will be a fight over Arizona and Florida awarding their delegates winner-take-all. Gingrich and Santorum will come together. Gingrich will only suspend his campaign. He will be at the convention. I have been trying to research the convention rules. At this point, there is no way Romney gets to 1144 without a total collapse by Santorum and Gingrich.

    • http://www.unifiedpatriots.com/ pilgrim

      If he stayed on for every contest he could get more, and he would be the one Mitt would try to deal with first. I’m just guessing that there will be a lot of pressure by the establishment for a deal to be worked out before the Aug. 28th. convention.

      • Dave_A

        Something to the effect of ‘Be my VP and become ‘next in line’ for 2016 or 2020′

        That’s the play I’d make, if I were ‘Win at any Cost’ Mittens…

        And it’s a tempting offer too…

        If Rick says ‘No, I’m going for the big-show NOW, see you at the convention’, then Mitt will make his alliance-with-the-devil from TX…

        • http://www.unifiedpatriots.com/ pilgrim

          Mitt has said and his super pac has amplified a lot of attacks on Newt and Rick while remaining cordial with Ron Paul. That is why I believe he would go deal with Paul first. However, I do accept that your scenario could happen.

  • lapert

    You are missing the Missouri caucuses and Utah (winner take all) primary – that is another 92 delegates. You are also not really analyzing the races at all and taking into account the varied allocation methods – for example that highly likely Romney wins in Utah, Puerto Rico, Maryland, DC, Delaware and NJ are winner take all whereas potential Newt and Santorum strongholds aren’t changes the math considerably.

    In the end, nothing is inevitable in this world but the odds of Romney wrapping up enough delegates before the convention is much more likely than not.

    • http://www.unifiedpatriots.com/ pilgrim

      I just added Utah to the list. Santorum won Missouri by a huge margin, and it would seem unlikely for him not to receive the lion’s share of the Missouri delegates.

      It’s my opinion that it’s much more likely that Romney will fall just a little short of the 1144 delegates. As you say, nothing is inevitable in this world.

      • lapert

        It isn’t a perfect experiment by any means since the primary had low turnout and the caucus is later but it is as good a test as we’ve seen of the assumptions about how organization impacts caucus results versus primary results.

  • David123

    possible outcomes

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      playing and tea partiers…roosters can dream…

      • texastaxpayer

        Though of the two I like Newt better, it’s obvious a deal must be made. As Santorums leading it makes since for him to take the top spot.

        • texastaxpayer

          Delicious….

          • http://www.sourceoftitle.com skymutt

            … I doubt it would be of much significance, because Biden and Newt are both farily well known, and so most people would have their minds made up about which one of them they prefer beforehand. In addition, it would be expected that Newt would have more rhetorical flourish and Biden would be his folksy self. The VP debates have been more impactful when one or both of the candidates are not so well known, for example Bentsen-Quayle.

            Santorum is not a bad debater either. I was impressed by his tenacity in the debates vs. Bob Casey in 2006, the only time I have seen him in one-on-one debates. The GOP primary debates, where there have been four or more candidates and everybody is far apart and has to idly stand around most of the time, have not shown him off to his best advantage. Santorum would have a chance to impress people who are not put off by a confrontational style in a debate vs. Pres. Obama.

            But unfortunately for you guys, it looks like it will be the charisma-challenged Romney, the Republican version of Al Gore. I have little concern about Romney pulling a suprise stellar performance in a debate against Obama.

      • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

        And you are lots better than that.

        Santorum would be Bush on steroids and the only good thing that could come of that paring is that Santorum would resign and Newt would take over.

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          I’m not better ‘Becker. Pray for me.

        • Dave_A

          So ‘Bush on Steroids’ sounds good to me….

          Bush was almost identical to Reagan on policy matters – the huge difference (and the thing that lead to him being so unpopular) was his lack of speaking skills & thus his lack of ability to set the narrative.

          It wasn’t that Bush did the wrong thing, it was that he did the right thing but couldn’t explain that to the people.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            generally and on conservatism especially than Bush? I do, despite Rick’s occasional ramblings and Newt’s occasional trip across the line of decorum..

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            Every time he gets the opportunity to confront an issue, he turns the answer into a social rant. Once in a while the press baits him into it but more often than not he jumps on the mine all by himself.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            Its 609 MST?

          • Agelaius

            Santorum represents a big section of the party that actually feels social and moral issues are important. And I disagree with your unrelentingly negative perspective on President Bush. I think the Democrats prevented him from enacting much of what he could have pushed forward, and I think history will prove that he was a much better president than people currently give him credit for. Bush was not as stupid as people think. Of course the debt increased – we had major wars to fight, we needed to reduce taxes across the board – including on higher income families – as a matter of basic economic free market philosophy. and Bush was unable to cut discretionary spending on healthcare, social programs, welfare, infrastructure and the whole host of domestic programs we should not be funding because Congress appropriates funds, not the President. We need control of Congress and the White House consistently for a long enough period of time in order to eliminate entitlements and radically reduce spending on welfare, healthcare, human services, HUD, education and all those other things government should not be doing.

          • Dave_A

            And there is a good part of the base that sees social and economic conservatism as inseparable – I’d also say that so-con types make up an overwhelming majority of the anti-Mitt vote….

          • Dave_A

            I can’t support him in the primaries due to his personal indiscretions..

            Rick seems to be quite articulate, AND he’s picked up ‘the other Rick’s’ freedom-narrative….

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            His speaking skills weren’t a problem.

            His complete lack of a conservative platform was. Santorum will be worse.

            Bush did exactly the wrong things and there is no explanation that will fly for them. The fact that you don’t understand the damage that GWB did to the nation with his domestic policies and how those policies set the stage for not only an Obama victory but the ability for Dems to rightly say that GWB “created” the mess we’re in speaks volumes.

            They don’t call us the stupid party for nothing.

          • Dave_A

            McCain didn’t lose because Bush spent money.

            The combined enactment of NCLB, and Med-D had NOTHING to do with the recession.

            And far from being ‘indefensible’, Med-D was an abject necessity due to the 2000 campaign (it was THE CENTRAL ISSUE of 2000), and NCLB was and is intended to SAVE MONEY by holding schools accountable rather than continuing the Dem-led mantra of ‘all the schools need is more free money’. Oh, and not doing TARP would have caused a deflationary depression, all just to sate a bunch of ‘why not write me a check instead’ jealous types who made the majority of the opposition.

            There was nothing wrong with Bush’s policies, from a pragmatic perspective – he did what he had to do, never mind potential consequences. The problem, was that he utterly FAILED to get this out to the public & make the people understand WHY he was doing the right thing – to include members of his own party.

            McCain lost because Bush let the media set the narrative on everything from tax cuts to internal security, to the war.

            The fact is, Reagan would be ‘not conservative enough’ if he’d done the same things he did in the 80s, from 01-09. As evidenced by the fact that W’s policies were almost identical to – and in some cases more conservative than – Reagan’s.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            let us know. Top to bottom that post is an out-of-touch piece of crap.

      • WillWong

        Never in a million years! Love him or hate him, Dubya has leadership qualities that Santorum can only dream of! Dubya saying something taking one for the team….simply unfathomable! With Dubya…it was always about his convictions!

        • http://www.unifiedpatriots.com/ pilgrim

          “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.” That is what Dubya said to Candy Crowley on CNN. Santorum regrets his votes for NCLB and Medicare Part D, and Newt still supports those laws.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            Santorum and Newt have expressed regret for many of their prior relatively big government votes in the past and together with Romney there is a reason to suspect that all of them will try and avoid the mistakes of Bush, at some level, on spending…imho

            And I also think that all 3 have leadership skills that would make us proud in the war.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            stuff like that. The guy, like Mike Huckabee, is a Huey P Long populist trying to pass himself off as a conservative. None of the three of them are.

            We are in a sad, sad state as a party when anybody who has the slightest understanding of conservatism and small government would do anything but spit on the likes of Huckabee or Santorum.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            and DeVine men have lots of saliva….better kissers…

          • AceInTX

            We are in a sad, sad state as a party when anybody who has the slightest understanding of conservatism and small government would do anything but spit on the likes of Huckabee or Santorum.

            I truely believe that you’ll fight to your dying breath to see a McCain or Romney as the nominee and ultimately an Obama win election/reelection rather than give an inch to anyone who is even moderately socailly conservative

          • AceInTX

            you fit the mold by your actions and comments

          • Dave_A

            They’re generally libertarian, and advocate dumping social conservatives in return for a supposed windfall of young socially-liberal college kids, who supposedly only vote Democrat over social issues & will vote GOP if we become liberal on everything but economics…

            The problem, is that kids tend to be ENTIRELY liberal, not just socially liberal, and they also tend to NOT VOTE.

            The ‘youth vote’ is not worth sacrificing our core-constituency of social conservatives (which also happens to be, through the evangelical movement, the GOP’s largest source of young conservatives (kids raised in the church, who keep the social-conservative view once they reach voting age))

          • Scope

            to a degree. You are more than correct that the youngins’ are liberal in all areas. We’ve now had decades of liberal education which teaches that you are a big old meanie if you aren’t out for the “common good”, and that everyone should be equal in every way. Don’t forget to hug and kiss a tree today. The Obama administration has now taken it all the way down to early grade school level, get them when they are young.

            On the other hand, the elderly voters, a reliable block, especially those over 65 are breaking for Romney. They would literally vote for anyone who promises to not take their SS and Medicare, as currently constituted, away from them. They worked for it and earned it dammit. They don’t care if we become Greece, they demand what was promised to them. Remember Romney slammed Perry for saying that SS was a ponzi scheme, and sent out mailers and gave speeches where he indicated that Perry would have them pushed off the cliff, and would have them eating dog food.

            Santorum seems to be connecting with the more middle aged segment, and especially those that are considered middle income earners. They are the majority of voters. They are the ones that are actually working and paying taxes, unlike the unemployed and inexperienced college students, or the already retired entitlement promised segment of voters. I am strongly in favor of entitlement reform long before the youngins’ grasp, or are taught the same entitled attitude of the already retired’s.

            I do believe in safety nets, but not for those that truly do not fall into that category.

  • AceInTX

    I am humbled by those who appreciate my thoughts on these matters.

    This is only over if those who oppose Romney give up the fight and go along with the conventional wisdom

  • westcoastpatriette

    Confirms just how out of touch with conservatives this man and his campaign staff are.

    http://www.newsmax.com/Ruddy/mitt-romney-santorum-gingrich/2012/03/08/id/431848

  • burke

    Could those tip the scales in favor of Romney?

    • http://www.unifiedpatriots.com/ pilgrim

      http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/R-PU.phtml

      If you scroll to the bottom for the convention row you see that the 2,286 total delegates that a candidate must have 1,144 of to win does include 417 unpledged delegates. All four candidates already are counting some of these unpledged delegates as part of their total. I don’t know what will happen, but think the RNC establishment could put pressure on these 417 to work out a deal before the convention. The other 1,869 must cast their vote for the candidate they are pledged to vote for.

  • Change Jar Conservative

    > Ron Paul deals Mitt Romney his delegates to eclipse 1144 LIKELY

    This .. with Rand being the VP.

    Rand is a Tea Partier of sorts and would allow Ron Paul to actively campaign and advocate to his followers.

    “We came up short this year, but by having Rand on the ticket, we have someone who understands the necessity of returning government to it’s rightful place.”

    • http://www.unifiedpatriots.com/ pilgrim

      The good is that Rand Paul keeps Mitt from straying back to big government expansion. The bad news is that the governor of Kentucky is a Democrat, and Rand Paul’s seat could end up being occupied by a Democrat.

  • http://www.texasyoungrepublicans.com Mark Brown

    Those are some of the responses I got when polling two Ron Paul groups on the hypothetical of who they think Ron Paul Delegates should support if Ron Paul can’t get the nomination. These people don’t want to look at any other possibility other than Ron Paul, and will probably vote for Ron Paul ballot after ballot after ballot.

    That essentially leaves out any possibility for dealmaking. Any deal for the nomination will have to be between the other three groups, and the Ron Paul supporters will all their idealism shattered when the nomination goes to one of the other three in a deal that doesn’t involve any of the Ron Paul supporters at all.

  • krish

    paving the way for Mittens! Cannot believe it – Romney is leading in Mississippi – Rasmussen poll from few days ago. Romney has got 35% while both Newt & Rick are at 27%. This is just the nightmare situation for conservatives! I do not think Newt will step down …Romney is leading in Alabama in some of the polls & agian the conservative vote is getting split almost equally between Newt & Rick! Also, Newt is not doing well against Obama or in the National polls.

    I am sure Romney & his camp are so happy — this is the dream come true for them…..they will go after Rick & make sure that Newt does not drop out!!

    I know Rick has issues so does Newt ….compared to Romney they look like conservative icons! If Romney wins a deep red southern state, the blame goes to Newt -since he is from South & he cannot beat Romney – there is no way to spin this! Adelson is supporting Newt – to make sure that Romney wins!! If the polls remain as they are now, Newt should think about stepping down NOW & endorse Rick…..Newt will show the world, that he can control his ego & do the right thing for the conservatives in the republican party & agree to be the veep! It will go a long way to show that he has changed & it is not all about Newt (a big reason why Newt colleagues did not like the old Newt – still remember the petulant Newt compalining about sitting in the back of the Airforce 1 when he traveled with Clinton!)

    MS, AL primary votes…the future of the country is in your hands …Vote Santorum!

    • jamesm

      agree that Santorum and Gingrich would stomp Romney heads up in Alabama and Mississippi.