Sad Mitt, Happy Mitt. Could Somebody Help Me Figure This Out?
Like Troy, I've decided that those of us who are skeptical of Romney have reached the limits of constructive criticism. I'm more than willing to wish Romney well, stand back, and watch what happens between now and the convention. The trouble is, I can't figure out what is happening.
Commentary on Super Tuesday appears about evenly divided. Half argue that Romney will find it nearly impossible to wrap up the nomination before reaching the Tampa convention. The other half insist that Romney already has the nomination locked up.
A sampler:
John Avlon and Ben Jacobs, arguing the other day in the Daily Beast that Romney lacks any obvious route to the 1,144 delegates he needs:
Despite claiming six state wins last night and upping his delegate count to 404, Mitt Romney still does not have a lock on the nomination—or even a clear path to claiming it if his opponents don’t leave the field.
Consider this: if Mitt wins every remaining all-or-nothing state but one, and half of the remaining proportional delegates, he would likely still fall short of the magic nomination number of 1,144—which would force him to rely on unpledged delegates, the Republican version of the infamous Democratic super-delegates in 2008, to claim his party’s mantle.
Then there's Pete Wehner, writing on the website of CNN, arguing just the reverse:
It wasn't pretty and it wasn't easy, but Mitt Romney has essentially locked up the GOP nomination....
Romney now leads in total delegates (404 vs. 165 for Santorum, 106 for Gingrich, and 66 for Paul). He is the only GOP candidate to have won states in every region of the country. He has the most money, the best organization and the only realistic path to the nomination.
At various times over the last few months, a number of Ricochet members have put up posts demonstrating that they've developed a deep knowledge of the nominating process--who gets what delegates when, always a complicated question, but especially so under the new rules the Republican National Committee has set in place this year.
Could one of you help me out here? Romney can't lock it up before the convention in Tampa--or Romney already has it locked up. Which view has the math on its side?
- Comment (23)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: Sad Mitt, Happy Mitt. Could Somebody Help Me Figure This Out?
William F. Gavin writing on the Corner outlines why the math is probably a moot point come November.
Re: Sad Mitt, Happy Mitt. Could Somebody Help Me Figure This Out?
One can acknowledge that Mitt was the likely nominee, is the likely nominee, and, uh, always will be the likely nominee while also acknowledging that only a third of the states have voted.
For having been the presumptive nominee for a year or so, his failure to lock it down is fascinating, particularly considering how much money he's spent trying to do just that, but it doesn't change the fact that he will likely lock it down eventually.
Edited on March 8, 2012 at 11:28pmJan '11
Re: Sad Mitt, Happy Mitt. Could Somebody Help Me Figure This Out?
So, the thing about the Avlon/Jacobs piece is how they don't really do much -- if any -- actual math.
Nov '10
Re: Sad Mitt, Happy Mitt. Could Somebody Help Me Figure This Out?
To me it is obvious. Is it not obvious to everyone else that even though Mitt "wins" primaries, on net, only about 1/3rd of Republicans actually voted for him? I know that come November, all the Republicans will fall in line and vote for whomever is anybody but Obama. However, if only 1/3rd of Republicans can get excited about him, how is it expected that more than a 1/3rd of the independents will get excited about him?
This is really 2008 deja vu all over again to quote the great Yogi Berra.
Edited on March 8, 2012 at 11:47pmDec '10
Re: Sad Mitt, Happy Mitt. Could Somebody Help Me Figure This Out?
Even if Romney falls short in actual delegates, it's pretty clear that he will be far closer to the magic number than any of his opponents (unless one drops out very soon). Even if it's not a decisive win; it's a win. I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that Romney will do surprisingly well in Kansas, Missouri, Mississippi, and Alabama over the next week. The consensus may well be that this is over come March 18.
Jan '11
Re: Sad Mitt, Happy Mitt. Could Somebody Help Me Figure This Out?
As long as Romney places in a solid 2nd in those contests, he's in great shape. Heck, polling out today suggests he might even win Alabama.
May '10
Re: Sad Mitt, Happy Mitt. Could Somebody Help Me Figure This Out?
Here are a couple of columns, with links, that go into the math pretty well. First, Jennifer, then Rick Moran and finally Politico.
Dec '10
Re: Sad Mitt, Happy Mitt. Could Somebody Help Me Figure This Out?
It is not inconsistent to say that Mitt Romney has the best mathematical chance of winning the nomination at this juncture AND that Mitt Romney does not have a lock on the nomination. If his rivals lock up enough delegates, Mitt can end up short of the nominating total even if all of his rivals end up short of that mark as well. I'd say Super Tuesday was inconclusive. That's a major problem for Romney: every primary and caucus has proved inconclusive as far as confirming Romney as the sole inevitable candidate. And we remember what happened to Hillary when her strategy of winning Super Tuesday conclusively came up short.
Jan '11
Re: Sad Mitt, Happy Mitt. Could Somebody Help Me Figure This Out?
Thought Dave Weigel's take on Super Tuesday was pretty good.
Mar '11
Re: Sad Mitt, Happy Mitt. Could Somebody Help Me Figure This Out?
I find Mr Obama's swagger very annoying, but it's true that neither Mr Romney nor Mr Santorum have it.
If this is the criterion for being Presidential, we are in even deeper trouble than I thought.
Feb '12
Re: Sad Mitt, Happy Mitt. Could Somebody Help Me Figure This Out?
#4
Robert,
Your question regarding Romney : " However, if only 1/3rd of Republicans can get excited about him, how is it expected that more than a 1/3rd of the independents will get excited about him?"
This may be the question of the year!
Dec '10
Re: Sad Mitt, Happy Mitt. Could Somebody Help Me Figure This Out?
Daniel Henninger in the WSJ may be onto something.
Re: Sad Mitt, Happy Mitt. Could Somebody Help Me Figure This Out?
Jeffrey Anderson at The Weekly Standard writes:
May '10
Re: Sad Mitt, Happy Mitt. Could Somebody Help Me Figure This Out?
Overwelming odds indicate he has won. Men who need to sell advertising and page-views theorize he has not.
It's over.
May '11
Re: Sad Mitt, Happy Mitt. Could Somebody Help Me Figure This Out?
Here's my take, for what it's worth. In the last presidential election, the talking heads told me that I had to get behind McCain....Romney was too problematic, for whatever reason. So I did. Had it not been for Sarah Palin, I probably would have just voted for McCain and not actively engaged in trying to get him elected. Boy, was he ever a terrible candidate! Now, four years later, those same talking heads, including McCain, now tell me that I must get behind Romney. WTF? I just don't feel that he is my guy, but the main reason I will not give up on Santorum (and Gingrich although he seems to have lost his mojo) is that I resent being told that my opinion doesn't matter. I want a strong conservative who will be able to argue against Obamacare. I see Romney as weak, weak, weak on this key issue, and his need to spend millions on negative attack ads in order to win is only alienating me more. As John Locke (in LOST) said, "don't tell me what I can and cannot do." Let me decide and make me live with the consequences.
Re: Sad Mitt, Happy Mitt. Could Somebody Help Me Figure This Out?
I am struck by the fact that those who say "it's over" and say this over and over again are the ones who keep telling us that, in his heart of hearts, the man who publicly touted Romneycare as "a model for the states" and even "a model for the nation" was never really excited about the measure at all.
It is not over until someone has a majority of the delegates. It is now likely and it has been likely eve since Mitch Daniels chose not to run that Romney will get the nomination. But it is not over, and those who make claims to the contrary are seeking to manipulate the rest of us.
Nov '11
Re: Sad Mitt, Happy Mitt. Could Somebody Help Me Figure This Out?
Paul A. Rahe:
* * *
. . . it is not over, and those who make claims to the contrary are seeking to manipulate the rest of us.
Yes, there's that, but some of the rest of us don't respond well to manipulation . . . unless it's not metaphorical. Speaking of metaphorical hands on activities, it can't be over for me until I get my chance to pull the lever.
May '10
Re: Sad Mitt, Happy Mitt. Could Somebody Help Me Figure This Out?
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.: Jeffrey Anderson at The Weekly Standard writes:
Jeffrey Anderson has abandoned any pretense of objectivity. I get the impression that he was hired by Bill Kristol on a contract basis to effect a brokered convention so Bill has one last chance to draft Paul Ryan. Is his math right? Sure. His assumptions are not particularly reasonable.
I am fine with just waiting this thing out. My only hope is that we stop the circular firing squad and concentrate on Obama, not each other.
Nov '11
Re: Sad Mitt, Happy Mitt. Could Somebody Help Me Figure This Out?
Ah, that most subtle, digressive, and duplicitous punctuation: the parenthesis.
(Or should I say, parentheses, because, like our candidates, they gather in pairs?)
Yes, Romney will win unless one of the other two drops out. (No, not Paul, who is really more like a kooky, inapposite, exclamation point who always comes last!)
But if one of the other two does drop out, especially if Gingrich drops out, then it's new math.
(I think I just had a "well, duh" moment.)
Edited on March 9, 2012 at 5:02amJul '10
Re: Sad Mitt, Happy Mitt. Could Somebody Help Me Figure This Out?
Paul A. Rahe:
It is not over until someone has a majority of the delegates. It is now likely and it has been likely eve since Mitch Daniels chose not to run that Romney will get the nomination. But it is not over, and those who make claims to the contrary are seeking to manipulate the rest of us.
If that is true, and it may be, then surely those claiming Tuesday was anything other than a clear (though not necessarily conclusive) victory for Mitt should be tarred with the same brush. More importantly, I think that the word "manipulate" is a bit loaded in this context. We all attempt to convince.
But mostly that is all beside the point. Folks are inclined to make calls in different ways and at different times. It is no surprise that artists, journalists, & philosophers are more likely to extend a decision process, and that bottom-line types are more likely to truncate one.