I think Noam Scheiber's analysis of how whoever wins in South Carolina, Mitt Romney has the advantage is pretty shrewd. I would only add to what Noam says that Romney's already leading in delegates, and since he's going to pick up even more in Nevada that will further strengthen his position. The fact that The Washington Post can make reference to Romney having a "delegate strategy" strikes me as telling. At the end of the day, you need delegates to win. A strategy to win delegates seems like a smart strategy.
« Reagan Stuff | Main | Mittmentum »
Heads Romney Wins, Tails Romney Also Wins
19 Jan 2008 12:51 pm
Comments (25)
Romney will the toughest candidate to beat by the eventual Dem nominee. He may be a phony, but he comes across as quite an innocous one a la GWB.
Scary.
But the media hate Romney.
Well said about the "delegate strategy."
I've been trying for years to get the Dodgers to adopt a "runs strategy" toward their baseball games, but thus far, no luck.
But the delegate strategy is based on (a) different candidates beating Romney in different parts of the state, and (b) getting some delegates when he finishes second. However, many of the GOP contests are Winner-Take-All, notably New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey. California is WTA by district with another award for statewide WTA. If McCain wins SC, then it seems to me that he will win FL, plus most of the districts in CA, plus NY, NJ, and maybe CT, unless talk radio is really able to put the brakes on McCain.
Dems should be rooting hard for "not McCain" to win as many primaries as possible.
gregor, Romney is telegenic enough. But no one outside his base will have a "soft spot", or sentimental attraction, towards Romney the way they might towards McCain or Huckabee.
Moreover, Romney doesn't resemble Bush where it counts: he doesn't have a southern drawl, and doesn't have a "gentleman's C" life history (beyond college and up to the Rangers deal in Bush's case) to make white petty-bourgeois types less insecure in their own insignificance.
kth, the thing is, those cues help Bush in places like Missouri and rural Ohio. But they won't be enough to help Romney make any of the eastern seaboard competitive.
Okay, I did some digging. NV awards 35 delegates. SC awards 47 delegates, but has been penalized and will be reported as rewarding only 24 delegates (it will award 47 if its original delegate count is restored). With McCain and Huckabee likely to split some of the districts, but Romney romping in Nevada, he will increase his lead. Obviously it's better if Huck wins, but if Romney can (a) get the press to report that he's built a big lead where it matters, and (b) become talk radio's preferred not-McCain alternative, it seems plausible he can win even if McCain wins SC.
Southern Republican Presidents are actually fairly rare. The Republican party has to go out of it's way not to seem like the southern party, so they usually try to nominate westerners to appeal to the only other region they have real strength in.
Good news, since I enjoy hating Romney. But I have to wonder what makes everyone so sure he's trouceable in November, especially since we have no idea who he'll be in October.
Then again, it's been a while since there's been a candidate for whom early symbolic victories aren't necessary to bring in money to allow an extended primary campaign.
Romney has the luxury of knowing that he won't run out of Tagg's inheritance.
However, many of the GOP contests are Winner-Take-All, notably New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey.
Hence the Julie Annie strategy.
Your focus on Mitt's current advantage in the delegate count is misleading. As of now, he has the lead in a trivial number of delegates relative to the total yet to be decided.
Many of the largest states have a winner-take-all system. Romney can't come in second in NY and take away any delegates. Or NJ. Or CT.
Those 3 states alone have several times more delegates than have been won to date.
Sorry, Nick. I didn't see you'd already made the same point.
Southern Republican Presidents are actually fairly rare.
I think Southern Republicans were, historically, relatively rare. AFAIK, it's only in 1994 that the South becomes a solid block for Congressional Republicans. GWB (like Thompson) has feet in both camps. But it's the Southern conservatives' party now, and at some point they're going to want to make that clear.
It's good to see that everyone's snark detectors are working so well today...
The number of delegates for Florida has been halved, I believe.
especially since we have no idea who he'll be in October. Posted by aleks | January 19, 2008 2:15 PM
great point
Interesting that right now in NV, CNN, after having called the GOP race for Romney, has Ron Paul at 15% to McCain's 16%, Huckabee at 10.
For some reason, this gave me intuitions, totally non-scientific. Try out this imaginary narrative, see how you like it: In October, it will be the economy stupid and some proficience at techocracy, not populist rants, will be the preferred answer. (The economy, it's big and complicated, stupid, everyone either has a 401K or has at least seen Jim Cramer's TV show once.) Iraq will be issue #2 mainly because of what it is costing. We will see lots charts and graphs like Ross Perot's in 92 and people will actually be interested in them. The big question really will be whehter Romney and Limbaugh et. al. will still push supply side or try something different? One thing I really don't see selling very well by October is "the rich have to pay their fair share," people will continue to want to hear about people in this country getting filthy rich and will be tired of hearing stories about rich losing lots of money, that will scare them more. But simplistic Bush supply side will not sell either because his administration's dumbness will be the bogeyman of both sides running.
Delegate counts are irrelevant at this stage. Targeting NV over SC means almost nothing, we're talking about a difference of 11 delegates out of more than 2000. For Feb 5 it will matter which states the candidates target, because large amounts of delegates will be awarded, with differing rules state by state (some are winner takes all, some aren't). Then strategy will matter. Right now, all that counts is setting up a media narrative to be viable on Feb 5.
The only way Romney's delegate lead is important is if the media says it is important. But, in terms of a race to 50% at the convention, it is meaningless right now.
Who the hell wants to hear about strangers getting filthy rich? And why would most people be scared by seeing the rich lose money? That makes no sense, artappraiser. It's not like the rich will be living in the streets. I think what scares people is seeing people like themselves losing jobs and homes and moving in with mom and dad or worse (onto the streets or in with their kids). Maybe people who cater to the rich might worry. Is that what you are, artappraiser? Don't assume everyone else, or even anyone else, sees the world the same way you do.
You aren't by any chance a log cabin republican, if you know what I mean, are you? (Just curious).
Remember that, while Mormonism may be a disadvantage to Romney in much of the Republican party, in parts the West, there is a large Mormon population. 9% of Nevadans self-identify as Mormons(1). Mormons are well organized and largely Republican.
(1) http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gnoreligion/flash.htm
Mormons are well organized and largely Republican.
Sure, but the have completely wacky beliefs that will turn off the rest of the voters.
I'm all for there being an "all mormon/all the time" strategy against Mitt Romney. It will have the extra benefit of reminding people that most religious beliefs are wacky and superstitious at heart. It might just be enough to quiet down the evangelicals who believe they own this country now.
It's time for some healthy skepticism of Governor Romney's beliefs. We need to remind Americans that a President who believes in mythical baloney (besides the usual, well-established mythical baloney) could be dangerous.
Re: pseudonymous in nc - right on.
The article claimed that a 4th place finish would damage Romney's chances. Right now it looks like he's barely below Thompson at 4th. But only by a percentage point (14% to Thompson's 15%).
So, how did Romney do?
"He may be a phony, but he comes across as quite an innocous one a la GWB."
I made the GWB(ca. 2000)=Romney point on another of our progressive sites and got criticized (more or less politely) for having been taken in about GWB's beliefs or lack thereof in 2000 (my critic pointed out that GWB had said in the debates that "Jesus is my hero" or the like). But I think many folks may be taken in this time, by Romney, too.
Romney's wins in NEVADA, WYOMING, and MICHIGAN make him a top contender for the Republican nomination. Here are a few of the reasons why Romney is our best bet: 1. He has the greatest economic expertise and has experience creating and holding jobs. He has real experience dealing in today's global marketplace. Without a strong economy, nothing else works and Romney has most skill and experience in the real world of business.
2. Romney has a history of ASKING the right questions, LISTENING openly, EVALUATING & ANALYZING carefully and LEADING to effective solutions. He brings new vision, efficiency, and energy to every endeavor
3. Romney has impeccable integrity and high standards. He is absolutely trustworthy
4. Romney stands firmly in support of our constitution. He supports state rights and individual rights.
5. Romney has always been an advocate of education and is committed to innovation in technology. He supports research and development. He is an exceedingly intelligent man!
6. Romney is committed to a strong national defense. He will protect our borders and keep our nation safe.
7. Romney is a self-made man who owes no one favors. He will bring fresh voices to the table. Romney can make real change in Washington.
8. Romney is an excellent strategist and can WIN against the democrats!
A VOTE FOR ROMNEY IS A VOTE FOR A STRONG AND HEALTHY AMERICA
"Sure, but the have completely wacky beliefs that will turn off the rest of the voters."
Really? While this may be true, should it be true?
How many actual Mormons do you know Ratzo? And how are their core beliefs any more "whacko" than those of Catholics, observant Jews or Evangelicals?
They're not. I know a lot of Mormons. And their "whacko" beliefs lead to decidedly practical lifestyles which, on average, add more value to the civic life of the communities they live in than the devotees of most most religions I am aware of.
Comments closed February 02, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Go Mitt!
Posted by JFD | January 19, 2008 1:15 PM