Should Newt Stay or Go?
Peter Robinson ·
March 19, 2012 at 6:00pm
Since neither Newt nor Santorum is even remotely likely to lock up the nomination, capturing 1,144 delegates before the GOP convention in Tampa, let's suppose that Newt's aim is merely to prevent Romney from doing so.
Would Newt do Romney more damage by remaining in the race or by dropping out?
Nobody knows.
I repeat. The rules with which the Republican National Committee has blessed us are too complicated, and the variables--money, polling data, media attention--are too numerous. Nobody knows.
Herewith a dispassionate analysis by the excellent political scientist, Matthew Dickinson of Middlebury College. If you find yourself scratching your head when you read it, you're with me.
- Comment (28)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Oct '11
Re: Should Newt Stay or Go?
The RNC rules are complicated, and I think people are really overlooking the fact that this is the first set of primaries to use these proportional rules. I may be wrong, but I believe that if the 2008 rules were in effect then Romney would have wrapped this up by now.
Gingrich seems to have long since abandoned the idea of capturing the nomination himself and seems focused on denying Romney the 1144 delegates before the convention. One of Gingrich's senior advisors said as much, if I recall, after Alabama and Mississippi.
Some have said that Gingrich is paradoxically helping Romney by staying in, since he is taking votes from Santorum. However, I've seen polling that shows that half of Gingrich's supporters list Romney as their second choice, so I believe it's a wash.
Jan '11
Re: Should Newt Stay or Go?
Peter: I noticed that you're not asking whether Ron Paul should stay or go. And now that the mission in Afghanistan is about to come apart [it's all but decided that further U.S. involvement not wanted there], is Ron Paul's foreign policy weaknesses all that important? I ask because we all know he's got far more of the limted government bona fides than the others. "What about Iran and Paul policy?", you may ask. Isn't it congress' job to authorize those things?
Feb '12
Re: Should Newt Stay or Go?
Newt should exit in order to serve the party and the country; he's shown that he cannot win except in his home area.
If Santorum ultimately loses, non-Romney conservatives will feel as if they had a fair shot and will be more likely to rally around Romney in the general election. If Santorum ultimately wins, Romney fans will feel that Romney lost after a serious contest and not because of Gingrich's grudge.
And Romney will benefit as a candidate. Perhaps a battle with Santorum will force him to work on his appeal to the base. In 2008, another moderate Republican took the base for granted and lost. McCain personally reached out to conservatives only twice in any significant way: at CPAC and (6 mos. later) at Rick Warren's forum. Romney can't afford to make this mistake, but he hasn't made the necessary moves to garner the base's support (e.g., making regular speeches about abortion, marriage, guns, and so on).
Since Romney is likely to win in the end, it is critical that: (1) all conservatives feel as if they had their chance, and (2) Romney understand how to gain their warm support.
Apr '11
Re: Should Newt Stay or Go?
I think that all of the non-Romney candidates should stay in if they want to, to the extent that their resources will carry them. It doesn't matter at this point, anyway. If Romney continues winning at his historical rate, which is a pretty good assumption, then he will have more than enough delegates to secure the nomination.
Jan '12
Re: Should Newt Stay or Go?
I get the sense that Newt might be staying in so that he may grow a size-able chunk of delegates in order to become "king maker" in a contested convention. This also seems to be the strategy of Ron Paul, albeit with much less success as of today.
As to the question asked, like you Peter, I am scratching my head. I think in order to get to an answer you have to look at it from the perspective of each candidate. The math is so complicated that I doubt I could figure that out and I get the feeling that it is the same for Team Santorum, who is having trouble getting on the ballot, never mind doing delegate math. If you are Newt I think you stay in. The benefit for him would be staying in the headlines, having a chance of winning the nomination, and at the very least he wields a good number of delegates at the convention.
Apr '11
Re: Should Newt Stay or Go?
Nate Silver did a (to my mind) somewhat superior analysis just after Super Tuesday. At that point, he thought that, assuming that Newt didn't have any effect on the race through King Of Bain, sucking up Mitt's money, and other factors, the race being Newtless from the beginning would have seen Mitt 10 delegates better off, Santorum 110 better off. In other words, Newt would be less likely to achieve a brokered convention if he had dropped out, and less likely to receive the nod if there was one.
Since then, Kansas would have been unaffected, the islands might have given Santorum an extra delegate or two (although Newt's least impressive performance so far was a 0.5% island vote share), and Hawaii might have, but would probably not have, given him an extra delegate. In no case did Newt help Mitt.
In Alabama and Georgia, Newt was catastrophically terrible for Santorum. With Newt out, Santorum would likely have been above the 50% threshold to win all the delegates in most Congressional Districts and State-Wide. Something like a 72-6 delegate wipe-out would have been plausible.
Edited on March 19, 2012 at 7:07pmMay '10
Re: Should Newt Stay or Go?
By now, it almost surely makes no difference what Newt does.
If James is correct in assuming that 2/3 of Newt's AL-MS vote would have gone to Santorum, he certainly did the presumed "conservative base" a disservice by staying after Super Tuesday.
James, do you have exit polling data to support your thesis?
Apr '11
Re: Should Newt Stay or Go?
Looking into the medium term future; Newt harms Santorum, admittedly by less, in Illinois. In Louisiana, there are two primaries, one on Saturday, in which 20 delegates are proportionally allocated to those who get >25% of the vote, an unusually high threshold. If Newt somehow keeps Mitt <25%, which is unlikely but possible, he'd help considerably.
In Wisconsin, he'd hurt if Wisconsin followed national polling, but a Wisconsin poll from PPP in February suggests he'd be helpful. In DC he helps because he, unlike Rick, is on the ballot. He hurts in Maryland.
For late April, Silver suggests that Newt is irrelevant to all contests other than Delaware, where he's a problem for Rick, and New York, where he's a smaller benefit, and has no non-trivial impact thereafter. This seems to be based on an assumption that the number of people wasting votes on Gingrich declines over the course of the election if he proves non-viable. In that prediction, Nate underestimated Newt's share of the popular vote and overestimated his delegate haul, but was reasonably accurate on both counts.
Apr '11
Re: Should Newt Stay or Go?
Duane Oyen: By now, it almost surely makes no difference what Newt does.
If James is correct in assuming that 2/3 of Newt's AL-MS vote would have gone to Santorum, he certainly did the presumed "conservative base" a disservice by staying after Super Tuesday.
James, do you have exit polling data to support your thesis? · 3 minutes ago
I don't have very on point exit polling data, but Rick didn't need 2/3 of Newt's vote, just 55.13% in MS and 53% in AL. Gingrich's supporters were by far the unhappiest with Mitt; in Mississippi, asked if they would be "satisfied if Romney wins the nomination", around 2/3 of Newt voters said no, compared to half for Santorum voters asked the same question. 58% of Newt voters would have been satisfied with Santorum.
Alabama didn't ask that question in the exit polls, but "religious beliefs of the candidate matter a great deal" was one of Newt's strongest blocks in both states. I think it's safe to say that if you're voting for Newt based on his good Christian heart, you probably prefer Rick to Mitt.
Edited on March 19, 2012 at 7:51pmRe: Should Newt Stay or Go?
True enough, but that's because Dr. Paul's intention differ from Newt's. Newt wants to deny Romney enough delegates to wrap up the nomination, so asking whether Newt would do more to advance that objective by remaining in the race or by dropping out makes sense. Dr. Paul? As I understand him, his principal aim is to be heard, to have a pulpit from which to preach the libertarian gospel. This of course means that Dr. Paul should remain in the race all the way.
Re: Should Newt Stay or Go?
Peter Robinson
True enough, but that's because Dr. Paul's intention differ from Newt's. Newt wants to deny Romney enough delegates to wrap up the nomination, so asking whether Newt would do more to advance that objective by remaining in the race or by dropping out makes sense. Dr. Paul? As I understand him, his principal aim is to be heard, to have a pulpit from which to preach the libertarian gospel. This of course means that Dr. Paul should remain in the race all the way. · 5 minutes ago
On the other hand...that means the smaller Newt's share of delegates, the more 'principled' his run becomes, and the harder to demand he drop out. It does seem that he comes in second to Paul in running on an overarching principle -- rather than preaching the libertarian gospel, he's running on fundamental change. Especially if he's an electoral wash, it's hard for me at least to say Newt has an obligation to go.
Apr '11
Re: Should Newt Stay or Go?
Peter Robinson
True enough, but that's because Dr. Paul's intention differ from Newt's. Newt wants to deny Romney enough delegates to wrap up the nomination, so asking whether Newt would do more to advance that objective by remaining in the race or by dropping out makes sense. Dr. Paul? As I understand him, his principal aim is to be heard, to have a pulpit from which to preach the libertarian gospel. This of course means that Dr. Paul should remain in the race all the way. · 1 minute ago
I think they both have a variety of motivations (Newt doesn't just have future book/ speaking fees in mind, but has been talking lately about how much he's loving the race), but I mostly agree. My guess, though, is that one of the few things that would persuade Paul to drop out and endorse is if he believed that that would make the difference between a Romney and a Santorum nomination, so the question may arise if Romney does terribly enough in the future that he needs a Paul rescue. Paul doesn't seem to crave the attention quite so much as Newt.
Apr '11
Re: Should Newt Stay or Go?
James Poulos
On the other hand...that means the smaller Newt's share of delegates, the more 'principled' his run becomes, and the harder to demand he drop out. It does seem that he comes in second to Paul in running on an overarching principle -- rather than preaching the libertarian gospel, he's running on fundamental change. Especially if he's an electoral wash, it's hard for me at least to say Newt has an obligation to go. · 1 minute ago
Would you care to elaborate on this? If you ask most moderately informed people what policies Paul would move the GOP towards, they could tell you several in a heartbeat. I don't think that this is the case with Newt, at least not for serious answers (he's not running on a chiefly moon base platform).
Oct '10
Re: Should Newt Stay or Go?
Newt staying in hurts Romney by winning just enough delegates to keep Romney getting to 1144. It helps Santorum for the same reason; Newt's support would be divided between Romney and Santorum, and it's very possible that more of them would shift to Romney than Santorum. Excluding California, it looks like most of the remaining delegates will be awarded proportionally?
More importantly, Newt staying in keeps alive the dream of a brokered convention and a Candidate to Be Named Later.
Jan '11
Re: Should Newt Stay or Go?
With respect, I believe that Mr Santorum should end his campaign. His position on social issues will hurt Republicans further the longer he stays in the race. Romney is inevitable (but then again, I'm often wrong), and solely Romney/Gingrich/Paul debates would be good for both front runner Romney and the party. Newt has great ideas that deserve to be more widely heard, these debates are great for that. Ron Paul is a bit odd, yet avuncular, so he's fine to stay in for interest's sake alone.
Jan '11
Re: Should Newt Stay or Go?
Peter Robinson
True enough, but that's because Dr. Paul's intention differ from Newt's. Newt wants to deny Romney enough delegates to wrap up the nomination, so asking whether Newt would do more to advance that objective by remaining in the race or by dropping out makes sense. Dr. Paul? As I understand him, his principal aim is to be heard, to have a pulpit from which to preach the libertarian gospel. This of course means that Dr. Paul should remain in the race all the way.
Those were just rhetorical questions designed to begin a side discussion about how I think conservatives here on Ricochet backed the wrong horses over what seems like a single-issue difference -- foreign policy. I could have written a post on it in the member feed but didn't have all that much to say about it. So, I opted for a stray comment in your thread knowing that it might be an awkward segue [Ricochet Podcast rubbing off?] to a larger discussion about why many conservatives aren't ready for more libertarian ideals.
Edited on March 19, 2012 at 8:59pmFeb '12
Re: Should Newt Stay or Go?
Counterpoint to Erik Larsen:
Romney should end his campaign. When a candidate wins states like Ohio by only 10,000 votes (a half of one percent) despite having a national reputation with many strong connections among GOP leaders and wealthy donors; despite being on the campaign trail for five years; and despite outspending opponents somewhere between 5-to-1 and 10-to-1 - then he should realize that he is too weak to merit the party's nomination. And he should have realized it long before Ohio. Indeed, he should have realized it in 2008.
Without Romney in the race, who knows which other persons might have entered the contest, and which candidates might have come to the fore.
Feb '12
Re: Should Newt Stay or Go?
LowcountryJoe
Peter Robinson
...his principal aim is to be heard, to have a pulpit from which to preach the libertarian gospel. This of course means that Dr. Paul should remain in the race all the way.
Those were just rhetorical questions designed to begin a side discussion about how I think conservatives here on Ricochet backed the wrong horses over what seems like a single-issue difference -- foreign policy.... So, I opted for a stray comment in your thread knowing that it might be an awkward segue [Ricochet Podcast rubbing off?] to a larger discussion about why many conservatives aren't ready for more libertarian ideals.
The president has most discretion in the area of foreign policy. When a candidate has a very disparate view of what that policy should be, there is reason for great concern. Pres. Paul would have great trouble getting his domestic policies through Congress, however good those policies might be, but he would a rather free hand in implementing his "Come Home, America" approach to international affairs.
Inevitable conclusion of most voters: too dangerous to support.
Jan '11
Re: Should Newt Stay or Go?
Leporello, I think other candidates really weren't interested in entering the race because their chances in 2016 are much better with Obama finishing his second term (sigh) - it's difficult to unseat an incumbent president. Romney is facing a difficult enough battle as it is, I think these last few months should be directed towards coalescing support rather than mutual exsanguination.
Dec '11
Re: Should Newt Stay or Go?
Why would you just assume that support will coalesce?