A Small Point

This morning, Mitt Romney had more delegates than John McCain. Following today's primaries, Romney's lead has grown even larger because Nevada has more delegates than South Carolina and Romney won a larger proportion of the vote in NV than McCain got in South Carolina. Naturally, the press is declaring this a big win for McCain. I just saw Howard Fineman explain that "there is no longer any strong candidate in the race" to oppose McCain. Nobody but the guy who's leading, that is.

I feel Hugh Hewitt's pain.

Comments

In relation to Mitt's blowout, expect many rival campaigns, and a lot of the media, to suggest that the magnitude and importance of Mitt's win in Nevada is lessened by the largish population of Mormons in the state.

Posted by Ben | January 19, 2008 9:42 PM

This says Romney gained 13 delegates on McCain. McCain, meanwhile, will pick up well over half of the 24 delegates on SC, while Romney will pick up zero. SC is Winner-take-all by district, and McCain won either three or four of the six districts, plus won statewide.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | January 19, 2008 9:44 PM

We should remember that Michigan and Nevada have substantial Mormon populations. How well has Romney done in non-Mormon states? Well, when you're in a tough race for third in SC with Fred Thompson and lose it, you're not doing very well. When you can't win a neighboring state (NH), you're not doing very well. The fact is there's only Utah and Idaho left for Romney. His Mormon faith hurts him in every other state that's left. Yes, McCain came in behind Ron Paul in Nevada, but he didn't even try to run there (he should have). I think McCain is unstoppable as long as Thompson stays in the race. Romney's lead is not sufficient to win by coming in second or third in nearly every race to come. And he'll lose his lead in Florida's winner take all primary.

Posted by fostert | January 19, 2008 9:51 PM

Mitt's just not very Shane-like.

Posted by H. Fineman | January 19, 2008 9:53 PM

McCain is ahead in California, marginally ahead in Florida, he's even in shooting distance in NY behind Giuliani. McCain is going to be competitive in the South and split the vote with Huckabee.

He's going to be endorsed by Thompson and garner most of the Giuliani vote if and once he ends his candidacy after a Florida victory.

How does Romney expect to win the nomination? In New England and the industrial Midwest? Or with money? I am not sure his money is going to be as effective as the free media and name recognition McCain has.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | January 19, 2008 10:11 PM

Romney expects to win because he expects the party to back him. Not sure why thats so hard to understand.

Posted by Rob | January 19, 2008 10:19 PM

my forecast, at 11:37 in your predictions thread, was that whatever happened would be "good for mccain" because that appears to be a constitutional requirement....

Posted by howard | January 19, 2008 10:20 PM

A large Mormon population in Michigan? I don't think so. While there are large numbers of Mormons in most Western states, they make up less than 1% of the population of almost every state east of the Mississippi.

Posted by jlr29 | January 19, 2008 10:26 PM

McCain finished behind Ron Paul in Nevada. He's unstoppable!

Posted by djslippyb | January 19, 2008 10:32 PM

fostert - I have a hard time "remembering" that "Michigan and Nevada have large Mormon populations," because Michigan doesn't. You're right that Nevada's got a huge one, but Michigan's got a quite small Mormon population, in fact -- smaller (in percentage terms) than the LDS populations of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina (to pick three states completely at random). Romney has roots in Michigan, which may be what you're thinking of, but Romney's votes in Michigan can hardly be chalked up to religion.

I'm not sure what it says about Romney's propsects, or McCain's, but looking at the Michigan results by county, it looks like Romney won virtually all the urban or suburban counties, and eked out victory in some of the more well-off northern counties, but lost out to McCain in the more rural counties. There was sort of a north-south, east-west split, but mostly it was an urban/suburban vs. rural split. It wasn't exactly a conservative vs. moderate split, but sort of.

Posted by pilgrim | January 19, 2008 10:38 PM

pilgrim- It seems I've been fooled by my Mormon friends from Michigan who led me to believe that there was a lot of them in Michigan. But looking at actual statistics, you are right. But I would say this- the anti-Mormon vote is much bigger than the Mormon vote in most states. Michigan obviously doesn't have a large anti-Mormon vote or George Romney wouldn't have won three terms as governor. South Carolina, on the other hand, has quite a lot of people who think that Mormons worship the Devil. And that's a pretty common belief throughout the South. Romney won't win in any state with a substantial anti-Mormon vote. Romney won't win in the South at all, and McCain was leading in California before the SC victory. My point that McCain is the front runner stands. But if Thompson drops out, Huckabee might get enough delegates to deny McCain an outright win. That would spell serious trouble for McCain, as the party leaders hate him.

Posted by fostert | January 19, 2008 11:06 PM

It does seem there is a substantial "anti-Mormon" feeling in some quarters, and it makes some sense that states with larger or more fervent evangelical Christian populations might also have more voters who would object to Romney on religious grounds.

As for the other stuff you mentioned -- it certainly does seem like McCain's the leader nationwide, but I wonder how much of that feeling is the result of the McCain-media love affair. Romney may be unloved among evangelicals in the South, but he doesn't need to win the whole state in, say, Georgia, to pick up some delegates. And that's true of many southern states. Both Arizona and Utah are winner-take-all, so that's a minor pick-up for McCain, but the northeast is largely WTA, too, and Romney may pick up more of those. So even though if I had to bet, I'd guess mcCain could pull it out at this point, Romney's actually in OK shape on paper.

Posted by pilgrim | January 20, 2008 12:24 AM

"Romney's actually in OK shape on paper"

That's entirely true. But that's really not enough for Romney. He needs an outright delegate win, he can't settle for a plurality. He won't fly in a brokered convention. Of course, all of the other candidates are in the same boat, so maybe it's not that bad. But looking at it now, I see Romney going into Super Tuesday behind in delegates. If McCain gets any momentum (money) from SC, he will be able to capitalize on a Florida win. And he looks pretty damn good in Florida. As for the Northeast, I grew up in Pennsylvania and I think McCain wins that state. Romney's economic policies don't exactly jive with blue collar voters. Huckabee will do well among the evangelical crowd (which is substantial in the middle of the state), but that's enough for third place. And the rest of the Northeast isn't much better for Romney. Normally, a candidate does well in his region, but Romney has a negative effect. He's changed his views on every position since he was governor, so people who used to like him won't vote for him. And those who thought he was too liberal won't trust him now. I can see Romney losing every state that borders Massachusetts. Simply because he's not the Mitt Romney they remember.

Posted by fostert | January 20, 2008 1:18 AM

Even in Nevada, Mormons are only about six percent of the population. Let's assume they're 15% of the GOP electorate, and they turned out at a 33% higher rate, and every last one of them voted for Romney--each of these assumptions probably being too generous. Take away every Mormon vote and Romney still doubles up his nearest competitor. The Mormon vote is not a major part of what happened today.

Posted by djw | January 20, 2008 1:31 AM

Yeah, Romney still wins Nevada even if no Mormons show up at all. The polling data shows that clearly. OTOH, nobody else except Ron Paul was campaigning in the state, so it's not clear how much the win proves.

The big question is whether McCain has a ceiling the way Huckabee seems to. I can see Romney winning lots of pluralities, especially since Iraq seems to be fading as an issue.

Posted by AlanC9 | January 20, 2008 2:20 AM

djw:

Mormons made up a quarter of GOP caucus-goers in Nevada and 94% of them voted for Romney. That's a lot. Living with lots of Mormons also probably reduces the anti-Mormon bias amongst non-Mormon Republicans. They've had three different Mormon senators.

Posted by hj | January 20, 2008 2:49 AM

CNN's exit poll had 25% of GOP caucus goers as Mormon and over 90% of these supporting Romney. That accounts for his really large margin of victory (he won among non-Mormons in Nevada as well, I think, though by a lot less).

Posted by ikl | January 20, 2008 2:50 AM

DJW - my understanding is that Mormons are about 12% of the population in Nevada, and were 25% of the Republican primary electorate. Romney won 80% of them, which was, I think, close to half of his voters in Nevada.

Posted by John | January 20, 2008 2:51 AM

Nevada delegates are unbound and not selected until late April. Nevada means nothing in terms of locking down down voters. South Carolina voters are bound, Iowa voters aren't.

Posted by A | January 20, 2008 3:31 AM

It seems strange that everyone is forgetting how Huckabee surge in the polls just prior to the SC election. A few more days and Huck might well have won SC and as it was, Huck bearly lost so I don't think anyone can quite throw in the towel for Huck yet. I'm willing to bet that the more South Repugs go - that Huckabee will come out stronger.

Posted by me-again | January 20, 2008 6:05 AM

Why does Nevada have fewer delegates than South Carolina?

Nevada has slightly under 400,000 registered GOP voters in a total voter registration of under 1 million.

http://www.nvsos.gov/elections/voter-reg/2007/1207maina.asp

South Carolina, on the other hand, has over 2.2 million registered voters and as far as I can tell aren't even identified by party affiliation.

How does this work?

Posted by El Cid | January 20, 2008 9:32 AM

By the way, if you look at the results map for South Carolina, McCain won the urbanized counties and major cities, with Huckabee bringing up the deliverance districts. Except for the districts bordering Georgia and Savannah, which perhaps got a bit more Georgified and went for Huck.

http://electionresults.scvotes.org/

Posted by El Cid | January 20, 2008 9:37 AM

Matt-Hugh Hewitt feels no pain, only what the party tells him to feel

Posted by PaulE | January 20, 2008 9:43 AM

This post reminds me a little of Rick Perlstein's discussion of Goldwater's campaign for the Republican nomination in 1964. His supporters quietly figured out all the arcana of delegate selection rules and contrived to focus their efforts on where they could rack up a lot of delegates "cheaply", for example by taking over the moribund Republican party apparatus in the then-solidly democratic South. By the time the San Francisco convention rolled around, Goldwater had built up an insurmountable lead, almost without anyone noticing. The victim of this strategy? Governor George Romney.

I'll bet that Mitt has studied this chapter of history very closely.

Posted by Knecht Ruprecht | January 20, 2008 10:00 AM

The anti-Mormon bias is largely a conservative Christian problem.

Mormonism didn't prevent Mitt from winning in the epicenter of liberal and progressive politics, that the rightwingers know as Massachusetts.

Anti-Mormon bias is also not a huge factor with the rank and file Democrats or they'd have staged a revolt against Mormon Harry Reid being named head of the Senate.

It is a GOP problem.

-GSD

Posted by GSD | January 20, 2008 10:52 AM

The anti-Mormon bias is largely a conservative Christian problem.

Mormonism didn't prevent Mitt from winning in the epicenter of liberal and progressive politics, that the rightwingers know as Massachusetts.

Anti-Mormon bias is also not a huge factor with the rank and file Democrats or they'd have staged a revolt against Mormon Harry Reid being named head of the Senate.

It is a GOP problem.

-GSD

Posted by GSD | January 20, 2008 10:52 AM

El Cid:

No, McCain largely won along the coast (retirees) and the midlands. Huckabee won in the upstate region where there are cities like Greenville (county with most GOP primary votes cast) and Spartanburg and are home to most of South Carolina's industry. The I-85 corridor between Charlotte and Atlanta. Certainly bible-thumping (Bob Jones University), but the area is mostly urban and suburban, not rural. Lots of MNC's like BMW, Michelin have major plants and operations in the area.

In the past decade or so, the upstate area had grown in power and population to dominate SC elections and pushed SC from moderate to deep red state. Huckabee won with too low margins in these areas to carry the whole state. Apparently the pendulum of political power had also shifted towards coastal communities of Myrtle Beach and Charleston, where many retired Northerners became politically engaged during this primary.

Posted by hj | January 20, 2008 11:27 AM

Interestingly enough, nobody has mentioned that McCain has only won primaries where Independents aren allowed to vote. And he has only won with the help of those Independents.

Posted by DR | January 20, 2008 1:05 PM

No one has seemed fit to mention that Romney wants to double GITMO and further ruin America's reputation in the world by the continuing practice of a worldwide gulag and the infliction of torture on war-time detainees who are held year-after-year with no judicial review AND that McCain, after preeening and primping against torture for months, pushed through the Military Commissions Act, which allows torture to be conducted by non-military U.S. agencies and instrumentalities and immunized all the torturers from any sort of war crimes prosecution.

Posted by PH | January 20, 2008 1:29 PM

No one has seemed fit to mention that Romney wants to double GITMO and further ruin America's reputation in the world by the continuing practice of a worldwide gulag and the infliction of torture on war-time detainees who are held year-after-year with no judicial review AND that McCain, after preeening and primping against torture for months, pushed through the Military Commissions Act, which allows torture to be conducted by non-military U.S. agencies and instrumentalities and immunized all the torturers from any sort of war crimes prosecution.

Posted by PH | January 20, 2008 1:29 PM

"I feel Hugh Hewitt's pain."

No, Matthew. No. Not even in jest.

Posted by Suffering Bruin | January 20, 2008 1:43 PM

Why does Nevada have fewer delegates than South Carolina?

As I understand it, SC lost half their delegates for moving their primary into January (ahead of Super Tuesday?). That's why Nevada has more.

Posted by banana slug | January 20, 2008 1:59 PM

I agree that in primary season, Romney's going to have an uphill climb in the Southern states, where the Southern Baptists are prominent and they have a big anti-Mormon stance. Huckabee's also been keeping the whispering campaigns going, playing the poor helpless victim when Mitt runs a contrast ad, then launching into his own personal attacks in interviews, then declaring himself honorable and unspotted for not attacking anyone. I'd be happy with Mitt, Ron, John or Fred, and maybe I could warm up to Rudy, but I will never vote for someone as shady as Huckabee and I will be very disappointed if the GOP winner picks Huckster to be his VP.

Posted by JT | January 20, 2008 5:37 PM

Romney gets less press than McCain because McCain has won two primaries that were contested by every other Republican: New Hampshire and S. Carolina.

Meanwhile Romney won Wyoming and Nevada (which were largely ignored by the other Republican candidates) and Michigan (which is sort of his home state: he grew up there and his father is a former 3-term Governor).

If Romney wins a contested state that is neutral territory, he will get more press. If he keeps grabbing the low-hanging fruit, he will accumulate delegates (at least in the short term, while the low-hanging fruit remains), but he should not expect to be seen as a front-runner.

Posted by Jon | January 21, 2008 12:41 AM

Romney gets less press than McCain because McCain has won two primaries that were contested by every other Republican: New Hampshire and S. Carolina.

Meanwhile Romney won Wyoming and Nevada (which were largely ignored by the other Republican candidates) and Michigan (which is sort of his home state: he grew up there and his father is a former 3-term Governor).

If Romney wins a contested state that is neutral territory, he will get more press. If he keeps grabbing the low-hanging fruit, he will accumulate delegates (at least in the short term, while the low-hanging fruit remains), but he should not expect to be seen as a front-runner.

Posted by Jon | January 21, 2008 12:41 AM

after about one second of rational analysis, it seems fairly obvious to me that Fineman was suggesting that there was no clear frontrunner - an assertion that appears to be true.

Posted by Peter | January 21, 2008 11:32 AM