Tied in Michigan?
George Savage ·
March 1, 2012 at 12:39am
Just arrived in my email from Rick Santorum's campaign. The argument is that Romney narrowly won the popular vote while Santorum won more counties. Given that the state awards delegates by congressional district, which Rick and Mitt split, the two appear tied in the state's delegate count.
Do you buy it? Is a delegate tie in Romney's home state something of an upset, or did Mitt's late surge to win the popular vote make him Mr. Inevitable once again, surely on his way to facing President Obama in the fall?
- Comment (54)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: Tied in Michigan?
etoiledunord
Is that to prepare for those Marquess of Queensberry rules that Obama will be using? It's not like Romney would not have done the same thing if he was perceived (by Democrats) to be the weaker foe. You use what you got. · 3 minutes ago
Moreover, Charles Krauthammer pointed out (as quoted on Rush Limbaugh's show today) that Reagan Democrats, aka working-class white male voters, are a key constituency the Republican nominee will have to win in the fall.
And Ronald Reagan kicked off his fall 1980 campaign with a Labor Day speech in a Democratic stronghold in New Jersey, making a direct appeal to Democratic voters. I think his objective was to build a majority coalition for his election....
May '10
Re: Tied in Michigan?
etoiledunord
Is that to prepare for those Marquess of Queensberry rules that Obama will be using? It's not like Romney would not have done the same thing if he was perceived (by Democrats) to be the weaker foe. You use what you got. · 1 minute ago
I don't disagree. I admire anyone willing to claw hard to win. But when someone stoops to manipulative measures like that? You don't "use anything available", you try to convince people on face value that you should be the Republican nominee. What if he wins a state or two because he creates enough of a movement getting Dems to vote for him? Sure I'm for creating that kind of mess in the oppositions races, because it obfuscates the facts. That is what Santorum is trying to do by enticing Dems to vote for him dishonestly.
May '10
Re: Tied in Michigan?
Stuart Creque
etoiledunord
And Ronald Reagan kicked off his fall 1980 campaign with a Labor Day speech in a Democratic stronghold in New Jersey, making a direct appeal to Democratic voters. I think his objective was to build a majority coalition for his election.... · 4 minutes ago
I am all for trying to convert Dems to sincerely vote Republican. The best chance we have at doing that in the actual election is by making this election about Obama. Reagan won hearts because of Carter. I don't mean to diminish Reagan, but Carter opened the door. Santorum trying to get people to vote to manipulate an outcome because they prefer not to see Obama run against Romney is not the same thing.
Edited on March 1, 2012 at 2:18amMar '11
Re: Tied in Michigan?
George Savage
Spin it is, no question. I just wonder whether this marks the beginning of the end, as we all start to rally around Romney, or if there is enough dissent yet for a long grind through the spring. · 54 minutes ago
I don't think Romney can call Michigan a rallying point. Two months ago nobody would have thought Romney's victory would be this closely contested. It's his family's state and he had to spend a lot of money to win a close contest. Mitt better be ready for a long fight.
Jul '10
Re: Tied in Michigan?
Mark Belling Fan
George Savage
Metro Detroit and environs was Romney's strength, but I think the actual results don't split smoothly along urban vs. rural lines.
With respect to GML's point, I am not sure that saying "Metro Detroit" is entirely meaningful.
Hopefully someone from Michigan can give us a better idea of the voting patterns.
I think a quick & dirty way to show the partisan breakdown is like this: in Wayne Co. (the city and immediate area) there are about 1225 precincts. Last night there were about 115,000 votes cast in Wayne. In Oakland Co. (suburbs/exurbs some affluent & growing, some hollowed out former factory towns) there are about 550 precincts. Last night there were about 150,000 votes cast in Oakland.
All the precincts aren't uniform, they are capped at 3k registered voters, but the basic idea should be clear. The city is midnight blue, the burbs are pink with more pockets of red than blue.
Dec '11
Re: Tied in Michigan?
George Savage
Metro Detroit and environs was Romney's strength, but I think the actual results don't split smoothly along urban vs. rural lines.
Agree; there is also the suburban factor, indeed!
Questions for George Savage: What effect did the 'open' nature of the Michigan primary have upon the results? If one were a Democrat, wouldn't it be prudent to try and manipulate the choice of GOP contender?
Dec '11
Re: Tied in Michigan?
Santorum makes me "want to throw up."
Byron York:
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/santorum-loses-one-little-guy/401141
Santorum leads with his emotional self-righteous moral fervor. Why did JFK make that speech? Were people afraid he would establish a theocracy? What do many think Santorum will do? His behavior and statements confirm the media's portrait of him.
Instead, Santorum could have begun by explaining that JFK was reassuring citizens that he would serve justice and the common good. Then, Santorum could point out that JFK and most citizens at the time agreed that government should protect the family and the innocent.
Events had formed a "perfect storm" that would have likely swept Santorum to the White House. All he had to do was imitate JFK and Reagan and show some grace and class.
Perhaps he has one more chance. Will he ever learn?
Jul '10
Re: Tied in Michigan?
Gus Marvinson
George Savage
Spin it is, no question. I just wonder whether this marks the beginning of the end, as we all start to rally around Romney, or if there is enough dissent yet for a long grind through the spring. · 54 minutes ago
I don't think Romney can call Michigan a rallying point. Two months ago nobody would have thought Romney's victory would be this closely contested. It's his family's state and he had to spend a lot of money to win a close contest. Mitt better be ready for a long fight.
I take your general point.
But I have been banging that particular drum for awhile.
Jul '10
Re: Tied in Michigan?
Stuart Creque
Yes: this is why Santorum is able to claim a tie in Michigan.
(Santorum didn't do too badly in votes there, either. While Romney outscored his 2008 vote total by 70,000 votes, Santorum outscored Romney's 2008 vote total by about 40,000 votes....) · 2 hours ago
Absolutely Stuart. I think the takeaway is twofold:
Santorum outperformed McCain against Romney in MI, which is very impressive.
Republicans in MI are plenty interested in the GOP primary race.
Okay. So CO, MN, MO, and IA don't count right?
There are zero bound delegates from those states' contests.
Aug '10
Re: Tied in Michigan?
While Santorum did well, and better than any of the other candidates running against Romney, it should be noted that Romney receive a larger percentage of the total votes cast this time as opposed to 2008. In 2008, against a larger pool of candidates Romney got 39% of the vote. This time he got 41%. That looks good for Romney.Additionally, there were more total votes cast in this primary than in the 2008 Primary. This bodes well for any GOP candidate in November. We need to build excitement about candidates and not repeat the spin -- both Romney's and Santorum's -- of candidates. Let's create our own spin.Let's get excited!
Aug '10
Re: Tied in Michigan?
Bah! The return key doesn't seem to format properly when posting from a iPad.
Re: Tied in Michigan?
ET, I don't think the open primary did much to affect the outcome. Radio host Mark Levin reported last night that the crossover vote in the Michigan primary was forecast to be about 10 percent this year against 7 or 8 percent in 2008 and 17 percent in 2000.
Levin also made the point that Romney backers in Michigan strongly pushed for an open primary for this election, believing that their man would disproportionately benefit. This approach paid off for Romney in New Hampshire. Interesting that angling for Democrat and Independent votes suddenly becomes unacceptable when Rick Santorum is the beneficiary.
If your opponent sets up a contest where Democrats and Independents get to vote, then I say that appealing to these constituents is fair game.
Edited on March 1, 2012 at 5:21amRe: Tied in Michigan?
Nathaniel, that issue bugs me as well. We are working on a fix, but right now the formatting doesn't stick when posting from a mobile browser.
Dec '10
Re: Tied in Michigan?
I'm not following the logic. There were fewer candidates splitting the vote this time and Romney got roughly the same percentage of the vote as he did before. (So did Santorum, by the way.) How does that look good?
Jul '10
Re: Tied in Michigan?
Freeven
I'm not following the logic. There were fewer candidates splitting the vote this time and Romney got roughly the same percentage of the vote as he did before. (So did Santorum, by the way.) How does that look good? · 8 minutes ago
That is true, but perhaps not enlightening.
The vote splits in 2008 & 2012 were quite similar. Santorum outperformed McCain, but other than that there was a winner (Mitt) and a contender (Rick did better than John), along with two scrubs with reasonably significant support (Huck and Paul in '08 performed similarly to Paul and Newt in '12).
It's not like Fred Thompson got a quarter of the vote in '08. He got about 15,000 more votes than Huntsman did this time.
May '10
Re: Tied in Michigan?
In a sweater vest...
Dec '11
Re: Tied in Michigan?
George Savage
Radio host Mark Levin reported last night that the crossover vote in the Michigan primary was forecast to be about 10 percent this year against 7 or 8 percent in 2008 and 17 percent in 2000.
Levin also made the point that Romney backers in Michigan strongly pushed for an open primary for this election, believing that their man would disproportionately benefit. This approach paid off for Romney in New Hampshire.
Isn't 10 percent a significant number in a fairly populous state?
Your second point is fascinating; makes me realize why I'd never be competitive as a political analyst!
Thanks for an informative and interesting post.
Edited on March 1, 2012 at 7:01amDec '10
Re: Tied in Michigan?
Palaeologus
Freeven
I'm not following the logic. There were fewer candidates splitting the vote this time and Romney got roughly the same percentage of the vote as he did before. (So did Santorum, by the way.) How does that look good? · 8 minutes ago
That is true, but perhaps not enlightening.
I wasn't attempting to enlighten. As I said, I just don't follow the logic.
Nov '10
Re: Tied in Michigan?
Some years ago the young girls' soccer team I was coaching was on top of the league at the end of the season and had a game against the team at the bottom of the standing. The girls played their worst game yet, but still (barely) led 1-0 until the final minutes and then let in a goal. The game ended in a 1-1 tie.
The other team pranced off the field chanting "We didn't lose! We didn't lose!" It was their first non-loss that year. You've never seen 15 more ecstatic young ladies. Needless to say our team was dejected. Totally different vibes. Yet on the scoreboard the teams came out the same.
Why do I tell this parable? Looking first to Santorum's team and then to Romney's, as far as I can tell both teams are chanting "We didn't lose!"
I'm not sure, but I think that's pathos all round.
Jul '10
Re: Tied in Michigan?
Freeven
Palaeologus
Freeven
I'm not following the logic. There were fewer candidates splitting the vote this time and Romney got roughly the same percentage of the vote as he did before. (So did Santorum, by the way.) How does that look good? · 8 minutes ago
That is true, but perhaps not enlightening.
I wasn't attempting to enlighten. As I said, I just don't follow the logic. · 3 hours ago
Oh. Okay.
Well the logic is "a better performance looks better." Which I suppose, depends upon one's view.
Edited on March 1, 2012 at 5:46pm