Super Tuesday Results
Mollie Hemingway, Ed. ·
March 7, 2012 at 2:25am
Well, it looks like my vote for Ron Paul today in Virginia wasn't enough to carry him to victory. Mitt Romney's winning my new commonwealth about 60-40 (yes, there were only two choices on the ballot.)
Still, tonight has a little something for everyone. Romney also won his home commonwealth of Massachusetts and the near-by state of Vermont. Newt pulled out a victory in his home state of Georgia. Santorum has been declared the winner in Oklahoma. And Tennessee.
We'll keep things updated here as we determine the winner of Alaska, and Idaho, and North Dakota, and ... Ohio.
Let's break down the delegate counts, the exit polls, who's up and who's down!
- Comment (113)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
Mar '12
Re: Super Tuesday Results
If the GOP were doing winner take all this year, as they have in all the past years, this nomination would be over.
Jul '10
Re: Super Tuesday Results
Chris Deleon
If you can't see that this has been one of the most difficult (and still unresolved) nomination processes for the perceived frontrunner in decades, I am afraid I can't help you. · 2 minutes ago
No you can't. Because you are just making stuff up.
Apr '11
Re: Super Tuesday Results
billy
Chris Deleon
I'm not sure I follow. If his successes were so successful, why are there still so many challenges? As others said, with Romney's huge advantages in money and endorsements, this should have been wrapped up long ago. As it is, he's just barely staying above his rivals by outspending them multiple times over. · 3 minutes ago
Which, obviously, won't work against Obama. · 9 minutes ago
The difference between his fundraising ability and Santorum's will still be a factor against Obama. Fundraising and endorsement gaining are important skills; the complain that he only has two and a half times as many delegates as Santorum (four and a half times as many as Newt) because he's better at those skills seems like saying that one quarterback's only viewed as as better than another because of his superb throwing and dodging skills.
I'm not someone who says that social conservatism, consistently Santorum's strongest points in exit polls, isn't a positive in the general, but it seems clear that it's even more helpful for the primary. Both candidates would lose key weapons in the shift.
Jul '10
Re: Super Tuesday Results
Looks like a 1 point victory in OH for Romney.
May '10
Re: Super Tuesday Results
Palaeologus: Btw Chris, why presume that the nomination should have been "wrapped up" in February?
That would require a level of ahistorical analysis suited to an Obama.
Did Kerry wrap it up in Feb? Did McCain? Did Barry? Did GWB? Did Bill? Did GHWB? Did Reagan? · 1 minute ago
If you mean numerically, of course not. But by Super Tuesday, it was pretty clear McCain was nearly unbeatable, with 707 delegates.
In 2000, McCain gave GWB a scare in a few states, but did not really pose anything like the challenge Romney is facing-- and that against a divided field.
In 1996, Dole lost just a handful of states. By Super Tuesday it was clear he was the nominee.
My memory doesn't go far back enough for the others. But the point is, with all the advantages Romney has (frontrunner status, money, endorsements, etc.) the fact that he's still struggling to close the deal shows how weak his appeal is to the base.
Apr '11
Re: Super Tuesday Results
Palaeologus
Chris Deleon
If you can't see that this has been one of the most difficult (and still unresolved) nomination processes for the perceived frontrunner in decades, I am afraid I can't help you. · 2 minutes ago
No you can't. Because you are just making stuff up. · 2 minutes ago
To give you an example of a similarly difficult primary, the last one saw McCain lose every state that Romney has lost this time, with the exception of South Carolina (and Missouri, if you could the non-binding primary). States McCain lost that Romney's won include Michigan, Nevada, Maine, Massachusetts, Wyoming (sorta), and may include Alaska tonight. The race ended then because Romney dropped out. Newt and Santorum don't have any better chances of winning than Mitt did; not negligible, but small.
Jan '11
Re: Super Tuesday Results
Regardless of who anyone supports on this primary day take heart in the fact that you won't have Dennis Kucinich to kick around anymore.
May '10
Re: Super Tuesday Results
Palaeologus
Chris Deleon
If you can't see that this has been one of the most difficult (and still unresolved) nomination processes for the perceived frontrunner in decades, I am afraid I can't help you. · 2 minutes ago
No you can't. Because you are just making stuff up.
Actually, it's pretty clear to most unbiased observers that Romney is having one heck of a struggle wrapping this up. Again, if you are blind to this, I am not sure you are persuadable.
May '10
Re: Super Tuesday Results
Keep in mind that money and endorsements and organization are all to be included in assessing whether someone is a good candidate. People cite these aspects of Romney's campaign as though he's cheating or something. He isn't, any more than the Buckeyes were cheating against the Spartans last week when they beat them with their superior coaching, recruiting, and hard work. (Sorry palaeo :))
May '10
Re: Super Tuesday Results
James Of England
To give you an example of a similarly difficult primary, the last one saw McCain lose every state that Romney has lost this time, with the exception of South Carolina (and Missouri, if you could the non-binding primary). States McCain lost that Romney's won include Michigan, Nevada, Maine, Massachusetts, Wyoming (sorta), and may include Alaska tonight. The race ended then because Romney dropped out. Newt and Santorum don't have any better chances of winning than Mitt did; not negligible, but small.
I agree Santorum's chances are smaller than Romney's. But larger than Romney's chances at this point in 2008. If I am reading my source correctly, McCain had 707 delegates after Super Tuesday. Romney currently is estimated to have 386.
Again, if we can't agree this is a tougher struggle for the perceived frontrunner who had so many advantages, than we have seen in a long time, then I am not sure we can agree on much else.
Edited on March 7, 2012 at 7:02amJul '10
Re: Super Tuesday Results
Chris Deleon
Palaeologus
Chris Deleon
If you can't see that this has been one of the most difficult (and still unresolved) nomination processes for the perceived frontrunner in decades, I am afraid I can't help you. · 2 minutes ago
No you can't. Because you are just making stuff up.
Actually, it's pretty clear to most unbiased observers that Romney is having one heck of a struggle wrapping this up. Again, if you are blind to this, I am not sure you are persuadable. · 0 minutes ago
I certainly am unlikely to be persuaded that the winner isn't winning.
May '10
Re: Super Tuesday Results
I'm no Michael Barone, so I don't know, but is it significant for our chances in November (if Mitt is the nomine) that Mitt was stronger in the counties where Democrats are more competitive in Ohio? Santorum won the rural counties -- am I assuming too much in thinking that those are counties that will lean Republican in November anyway?
Apr '11
Re: Super Tuesday Results
Chris Deleon
If you mean numerically, of course not. But by Super Tuesday, it was pretty clear McCain was nearly unbeatable, with 707 delegates.
In 2000, McCain gave GWB a scare in a few states, but did not really pose anything like the challenge Romney is facing-- and that against a divided field.
In 1996, Dole lost just a handful of states. By Super Tuesday it was clear he was the nominee.
My memory doesn't go far back enough for the others. But the point is, with all the advantages Romney has (frontrunner status, money, endorsements, etc.) the fact that he's still struggling to close the deal shows how weak his appeal is to the base. · 0 minutes ago
The process was, by design, drawn out by the RNC this cycle, but the ratios are better for Romney than they were for McCain. He's beating Santorum by bigger margins than McCain beat him, and he's beating Newt by greater margins than McCain beat his Southern regional opponent.
May '10
Re: Super Tuesday Results
Palaeologus
I certainly am unlikely to be persuaded that the winner isn't winning.
I see where your confusion is coming from. I'm not saying Romney is not the frontrunner-- I'm just saying he's having a harder time getting there than anyone with his advantages, in my memory at least.
My point is not that he can't win, but that his certainty is much lower than others at this point in past primaries. His chances are still greater than Santorum, but Santorum still has a greater chance than almost any runner-up at this point in the race in my memory.
And the related point is that Romney is pretty weak for a presumed front-runner. There are significant blocks of the GOP base that simply cannot get on board with him.
Edited on March 7, 2012 at 7:06amMar '12
Re: Super Tuesday Results
Well, take another look at your "sources" (most of us call it google) and you'll realize that 2008 was a winner take all process. Every state McCain won, no matter how narrow the victory, gave him all the state's delegates. As I said before, if that were the case this year Romney would almost have this completely sewn up and Santorum and Gingrich would have to drop out, because they would have no chance of getting the required delegates.
Jul '10
Re: Super Tuesday Results
Scott, we'll see you in tourney.
And keep in mind, there are always greater goals at stake.
To wit, the following quotation:
Wolverines taste like chicken
-Leonidas of Sparta
Apr '11
Re: Super Tuesday Results
Alaska results are finally starting to trickle in!
May '10
Re: Super Tuesday Results
I prefer the current proportional delegate allocation process to the winner-take-all process. It lets the rest of the country have a say in the primaries, instead of helplessly watching from the sidelines as a handful of states tell us who to nominate.
Nevertheless I grant that it does delay the eventual clinching of the nomination. Point taken. My argument that Romney should have wrapped it up by now is somewhat weaker.
It's still not over. Santorum still has a chance, and today's results show he's got a pretty sizeable following in spite of being significantly outspent. And again, if it were not for the split ABR vote, Romney wouldn't have a chance.
Apr '11
Re: Super Tuesday Results
Chris Deleon: I prefer the current proportional delegate allocation process to the winner-take-all process. It lets the rest of the country have a say in the primaries, instead of helplessly watching from the sidelines as a handful of states tell us who to nominate.
Nevertheless I grant that it does delay the eventual clinching of the nomination. Point taken. My argument that Romney should have wrapped it up by now is somewhat weaker.
It's still not over. Santorum still has a chance, and today's results show he's got a pretty sizeable following in spite of being significantly outspent. And again, if it were not for the split ABR vote, Romney wouldn't have a chance. · 3 minutes ago
Do you think that Romney wouldn't have had a chance against Newt, had Santorum not been running? I'm pretty sure he'd still have obliterated Newt in Iowa, and would have won the state. In New Hampshire, Florida, and Nevada, the combined ABR votes < Romney. Newt was terrible in Caucus/ non Southern states. The race would be over.
Apr '11
Re: Super Tuesday Results
If it was just Santorum, Santorum would have won IA & SC, but no other contests until the Minnesota/ Colorado races. Mitt would have vastly more cash on hand, and would have pounded Santorum in Michigan and Ohio. Instead of 40% of Mitt's delegates, Santorum might have 50%, but it still wouldn't be a close thing, and it certainly wouldn't see Santorum in the lead.