Delegate Count

Mitt Romney's boat of having won "two silvers and a gold" based on second place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire, plus a victory in the Wyoming quasi-caucus sounded ridiculous last night. That said, he's actually leading in the delegate count. I saw some sentiment on TV last night that Michigan is must win for Romney, but I don't really see it that way. Second place finishes are survivable for Romney as long as different people are beating him in different places and as long as he keeps picking up delegates. The GOP side has more winner-take-all primaries than does the Democratic side and, clearly, you can't lose all of those. But basically while Romney's not in good shape, he's in at least okay shape.

Comments

Mitt is our last hope to save us from War and More War.

Posted by bjk | January 9, 2008 9:39 AM

Interesting. If this all drags on long enough-- and why wouldn't it?-- Romney's ability to compete in every state will help him out.

Romney is being portrayed as a huge loser, but who knows what to make of the impact of media narratives these days?

Posted by snagglepuss | January 9, 2008 9:40 AM

Mitt's Gold/Silver Olympic medal analogy is really getting stale. Not only does the man seemingly lack any sense of humor or timing his spontaneity and creativeness on the stump is woeful.

Posted by steve duncan | January 9, 2008 9:43 AM

Second place finishes are survivable for Romney as long as different people are beating him in different places and as long as he keeps picking up delegates. The GOP side has more winner-take-all primaries

There is a problem withthat strategy. Different people winning each primary keeps Giuliani in the race. The two big winner-take-all states are NY and NJ. If Rudy is still in the race, he'll win those. Connecticut is also WTA, and Rudy would probably win there.

Posted by Njorl | January 9, 2008 9:44 AM

Can someone explain to me why I'm right that Hillary is significantly more vulnerable to any one of these candidates in the fall than Obama? Why exactly are the Republicans salivating over her so much, and are so confident it wouldn't backfire?

Posted by Bill | January 9, 2008 9:48 AM

Ron Paul leads Giuliani so far. I'd just love to see Giuliani be humiliated. S.C. is hopeless for him, and Florida doesn't look so good either, so the chances are good.

That said: every four years, every single pundit points out at least once that a single primary victory or defeat in a single state doesn't mean much of anything.

And almost every pundit also overinterprets the result of each state result as it comes along. So it goes.

Yeah, sure, I'm a Edwards supporter. That's why I'm saying this -- hi, Petey, you cracker. Do we still hate one another?)

But I'm really pretty weak on this stuff. Look at the Giuliani people spinning N.H. as another Giuliani triumph right on top of his 4% Iowa triumph. Those guys have brass balls. (Their reall message is "Not Dead Yet", but if you say it that way, your guy's dead. Accentuate the positive).

Hunter's got the other candidates right where he wants them, according to Hunter's spin doctor.

Posted by John Emerson | January 9, 2008 9:49 AM

If I were a Republican I'd be worried about a Presidential candidate who relied on primaries in states he couldn't possibly win.

Posted by John Emerson | January 9, 2008 9:51 AM

I think Romney is going to win the GOP nomination. To oversimplify things, where Huckabee is good, McCain is bad, where McCain is good, Huckabee is bad. Romney can just chug along, self-fund, stay viable. McCain has probably spent 150 days in New Hampshire since 200. He can't duplicate that kind of performance anywhere else unless the pundits prop him up. I think the big news out of NH is - America hates pundits.

Posted by joejoejoe | January 9, 2008 9:52 AM

The difference among delegate counts now is insignificant. Nobody's going to win the nomination by 7 delegates. Wait until some states that actually have large delegate counts come into play before posting this.

Posted by Al | January 9, 2008 9:54 AM

That's fair enough, Al, as to the ultimate impact of Romney's current delegate lead. But the point here isn't that Romney has a commanding lead, it's that reports of his demise have been greatly exaggerated. (As Matt put it, "he's in at least okay shape.")

Posted by snagglepuss | January 9, 2008 9:57 AM

"Second place finishes are survivable for Romney as long as different people are beating him in different places"

Bingo!

I've been buying Romney on Intrade of late.

Posted by Petey | January 9, 2008 10:02 AM

Giuliani is toast, he's running 4th in Florida according to the latest polls, and if he can't beat McCain or Romney there, then he's dead in NY and NJ as well.

Romney's real problem is he needs to get McCain out of the race sooner rather than later and become the anti-Huckabee establishment candidate. He needs to beat McCain in Michigan to have any hope of doing this.

I think Romney should start running against the "liberal media" trying to anoint McCain because they love him on immigration, campaign finance, etc. It's probably not entirely true, but could galvanize support among conservatives.

Posted by right | January 9, 2008 10:02 AM

So, are you saying that Romney's boat is seaworthy? Able to stay afloat despite being battered by waves of support for his opponents? Or is Romney's boat taking on water faster than he can bail? Maybe he needs to dig deeper into his pocket for another wad of cash to plug the latest leak. Will the Romney boat's hard tack to starboard ever succeed in finding enough wind to fill his sails?

Posted by Bragan | January 9, 2008 10:02 AM

But the point here isn't that Romney has a commanding lead, it's that reports of his demise have been greatly exaggerated.

Same with Rudy.

Posted by Al | January 9, 2008 10:03 AM

Well, with Edwards pretty much out of it, I really can't stand pretty much any of the other major candidates.

Except maybe for Huckabee, since he's totally ignorant, and doesn't really have a clue about what he's actually saying on anything.

I guess that leaves me "uncommitted" as a delegate...

Posted by RKU | January 9, 2008 10:06 AM

"Well, with Edwards pretty much out of it"

We have a wonderful 4 state system set up to test everyone before things get serious.

See how Edwards does in NV and SC before you jump ship.

Posted by Petey | January 9, 2008 10:08 AM

Edwards hasn't done so badly for delegates either.

A lot could change. I hope Edwards stays in the game no matter what.

Posted by John Emerson | January 9, 2008 10:10 AM

"A lot could change. I hope Edwards stays in the game no matter what."

Send 'em twenty bucks. Let them know folks still want them in the race.

Posted by Petey | January 9, 2008 10:16 AM

I hope Edwards stays in the game no matter what.

Ahh...rooting for Clinton, I see.

Posted by goethean | January 9, 2008 10:35 AM

Same with Rudy.

Rudy has 1 delegate so far. One! That's half of Ron Paul's total. Fred Thompson has six. A campaign strategy memo posted on Ambinder's site from 12/30 says they expected 24 by now.

Rudy isn't a serious candidate anymore. He's not going to clean up on Super Tuesday because he has the loser's stink and that's not going to change.

Posted by Joshua | January 9, 2008 10:36 AM

I hope Edwards stays in the game no matter what.

Ahh...rooting for Clinton, I see.

I like Edwards on domestic policy. On foreign policy the frontrunners aren't far enough apart for me to care very much. I can support any of the three in the general, though given their positions on Iraq I can't be enthusiastic about any of them. To me Clinton isn't much worse of a lesser evil than Obama.

My past disagreements with Petey have all been about military and foreign policy, but a dove (as we are called) has no candidate in this race.

Posted by John Emerson | January 9, 2008 10:47 AM

"Ahh...rooting for Clinton, I see."

Look at the polling, goethean. Outside of the blogosphere, Edwards and Clinton are pulling from the same pool of voters.

Why do you think one of the main Clinton talking points last night was "now it's a two-way race"?

Why do you think Obama got the same percentage in IA and NH but won one and lost the other? What was the difference between IA and NH?

Posted by Petey | January 9, 2008 10:51 AM

"I can support any of the three in the general, though given their positions on Iraq I can't be enthusiastic about any of them."

You ought to be at least mildly impressed that Edwards has the backbone to keep referring to the Iraq war as an "occupation"...

Posted by Petey | January 9, 2008 10:55 AM

He's my man, Petey, and it's possible that he's just keeping his powder dry and will actually do the right thing. But I've learned not to assume the best about anyone.

Posted by John Emerson | January 9, 2008 10:59 AM

"That said, he's actually leading in the delegate count."

Amazing. An acknowledgment of what the primaries are really about - selecting convention delegates - instead of paying 100% of attention 100% of the time to media spin. True, Matt mentions it only to pooh-pooh its importance, but at least it's not completely ignored.

Posted by Bloix | January 9, 2008 11:10 AM

God, Petey, I hope you're right about Edwards.

$50 to Edwards

Posted by hlah | January 9, 2008 11:11 AM

Second place finishes are survivable for Romney as long as different people are beating him in different places...

I agree. The key question is, can McCain parlay NH into victories in Michigan and South Carolina. The former looks very likely. I think the last poll I saw had him down seven points or so behind Huckabee in SC. It'll be interesting to see what kind of a bounce he gets from NH. South Carolina, as usual in GOP primaries, is looking like a key contest.

Posted by Jasper | January 9, 2008 11:16 AM

I guess what this post points out to me is the absurdity of how these primary races are covered. Matt tells us Mitt is in OK shape when, quite clearly, using the only numbers that matter, he's winning.

Now you could argue that there are so few delegates at this point that his lead could easily evaporate. Well, duh! All that tells you is that the outsized coverage that Iowa and NH get is ridiculous. But if Obama/Clinton/McCain/Huckabee are going to be paraded around town in triumph for winning victories in these backwater provinces, then why should Mitt be scoffed at for pointing out that, well, actually, he's beating everyone?

But of course, the only thing that really matters at this point is not the primaries themselves, but that very absurdity in how they are covered. It's a media crowning contest. So the real question is, who is the media crowning today, not who's actually winning.

I noticed in the background during Clinton's victory speech a graphic on CNN showing the entire state of NH colored blue to indicate that she'd "won". Except, outside the media echo chamber, NH isn't "won" by any single candidate. The candidates split delegates. The delegates pick the nominee.

Well, at least since NH and IA picked different "winners", so we don't have them deciding our nominees this time. Small blessings . . .

(Since I live in Florida, a state that had the gall to move its primary too close to the sacred New Hampshire, my vote literally doesn't count this time around, so I don't even know why I'm following this race.)

Posted by Rob Mac | January 9, 2008 11:23 AM

I have a serious question: if Huckabee wins will Chuck Norris get a cabinet post? Secretary of Banjo Tuning?

Posted by jim | January 9, 2008 12:36 PM

Can someone explain why no one mentions the Wyoming vote except for Romney, and he looks like a loser grasping for straws when he does it? I despise Romney, and while I want most of the candidates to lose I want Romney to be humiliated, but I don't know why Wyoming doesn't count.

Posted by aleks | January 9, 2008 12:36 PM

Because it's the tiny,overrepresented state that gave us Dick Cheney?

Posted by John Emerson | January 9, 2008 12:43 PM

Because this is Wyoming's first year having an early caucus and it got no media attention at all? Note that these aren't good reasons, but I think they're the actual ones.

Posted by washerdreyer | January 9, 2008 1:25 PM

At least Huckabee could sneak into Romney' hotel room and steal his special underwear with the religious symbols and then Romney would lose.

Posted by Charlie | January 9, 2008 6:21 PM

Charlie, I guess you know that Huckabee does not wear an underwear.

But then again, Huckabee is a minister and may be wears a relgious ornament or token of some sort that needs to be washed, cleaned and shined for proper political display???

Posted by rojotopo | January 10, 2008 12:10 AM

Do the candidates that don't come in first in a caucus still receive delegates for the votes that they receive? For example...Romney took 2nd in some states, Did that give him any delegates (or did they all go to the 1st place winner of the caucus)?
Secondly, I wanted to say that I do think that Romney is getting somewhat unfairly portrayed by the media. I think that there is a lot of hidden prejudices because, he is a Mormon. That is just based on my opinion. I do believe that he has the best skills to lead this country.
McCain...is so freaking ugly...I don't see how anyone can vote for him...he is like a big white blob on the t.v. screen with little yellow baby teeth.
Huckabee is full of himself and a hypocrite. He says he doesn't use slam tactics against the other candidates. He brags about it all the time. I think that this in and of it's self is a slam meant for Mitt Romney. Romney has the guts to say speak his mind.
Huckabee is looking for a vice president position if McCain wins the nomination. Huckabee just has no chance at all of winning. I don't know where the heck McCain came from all of the sudden. Go back to where you came from McCain before you get burned.
I don't see any of the other candidates as viable for the Republican nomination...Gjuliani sucks.

Posted by Debbie Berberi | January 20, 2008 1:44 AM