And the Nomination Race Begins!

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

Holy crap! This is... unexpected. Santorum swept all 3 states yesterday - he won Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado. It would appear that there may be two areas of the nation that Romney lacks appeal - the Bible Belt, and the Midwest (and yes, I know Colorado isn't in the Midwest, but I'm just saying that's where most of his problems have come).

[Death Rabbit]

Yeah, I agree. Yesterday was a surprise. I figured Santorum would take Colorado (headquarters of Focus on the Family and other evangelical enclaves, after all), but I didn't think he'd take all three. I'm most surprised by Gingrich's dead last showing.

I still have little doubt that Romney will be the eventual nominee. But bad nights like last night only serve to weaken him going forward. It does, however, strengthen the case for making Santorum the VP nominee. Although, if he really is the Mr. Rock-Solid Principles he's claiming to be, he'll decline the offer if its extended.

[The Shaman]

Here's an interesting titbit from the Yahoo News article about the Maine election:

"Only 2,290 people voted for Romney, 1,996 voted for Paul, 989 voted for Santorum, and 349 voted for Gingrich."

Is that normal? I can't imagine that's even their most hardcore supporters. It seems low enough to be almost laughable.

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

It does look like a very small number, but that is the historical norm for primaries in Maine. First of all it should be pointed out that Maine has a relatively small population. It may be geographically the largest state in New England, but by population, it is the smallest. There's a few other points to make that reveal why turnout is low:

Originally Posted by FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver

Like most other Republican caucus states, Maine conducts two separate votes at its caucuses: a nonbinding straw poll for presidential preference - that's the one where the people acutally vote - and another vote where delegates are selected to regional conventions. The eventual delegate allocations are likely to bear some resemblance to the straw poll results, but it will be an imperfect one.

There were only 21 delegates at stake in Maine, and they were chosen through a separate vote at the caucuses, which will bear an inexact relationship to the presidential preference vote once the state goes through the process of regional and state conventions. If you project the delegates from the popular vote in Maine, Mr. Romney would finish with the same number of delegates (8) as Ron Paul, and 4 more than Rick Santroum. But the eventual results may differ by a delegate or two or upward or downward.

So the answer is that Maine has a rather convoluted delegate selection process - even moreso than most caucus states.

I really think that Romney's biggest weakness is in the northern Midwest. He doesn't really poll well throughout the middle of the country, but since virtually any sentient Republican will win just about all the states that lie between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains (Colorado may be the one exception) his numbers shouldn't be too much of a concern there. The same thing goes for the deep South - while far from an ideal candidate in the eyes of those Republican voters, he should still pull through.

But the Midwest is going to be a major challenge. Let's say Obama wins his home state of Illinois, and Romney manages to pull out Michigan because that's where his family is from (although that's certainly no guarantee for him). He does not poll particularly well anywhere else in that region. If he can't pick up a win somewhere in there, I can tell you who's winning the election right now. While he doesn't need to win all or even most of them, he's going to need a couple of wins out of Ohio, Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa.

[Defreni1]

Interestingly enough Romney polls very poorly in Minnesota.

He is only leading in one of 83 counties according to a Pewt poll. This opens a very interesting question. If Santorum is taking the Republican nomination will USA be as conservative as it is often portrayed in the media and in the story of the Republican party.

Santorum is against contraceptives. Something 98% of american sexually active women are using. Will they vote in a president who are so at odds with the generel sentiment?

Regards
Defreni

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

I think that if the Republicans have any hope of beating Obama, they MUST nominate Romney. I don't think either Santorum or Gingrich is going to have enough appeal among moderate and independent voters to win. Unfortunately for Republicans, the most politically active members of the party are typically the most conservative, as well as the Tea Party people. To them, Romney, is a suboptimal choice.

That said, I do believe Romney will still win the nomination in the end. It won't be the easy path to victory that it appeared after his Florida win, but he is still the clear favorite. While Santorum does well in the Rust Belt and Midwest, he's not particularly strong in other areas. For example, the most logical pick as a Romney alternative in the southern states will be Gingrich. I think you'll see all three candidates win states, but Romney will win the most, including the ones that award the most delegates, like Florida, New York, and California.

[Defreni1]

Originally Posted by Aldeth the Foppish Idiot

I think that if the Republicans have any hope of beating Obama, they MUST nominate Romney. I don't think either Santorum or Gingrich is going to have enough appeal among moderate and independent voters to win. Unfortunately for Republicans, the most politically active members of the party are typically the most conservative, as well as the Tea Party people. To them, Romney, is a suboptimal choice.

But is Romney electible? I mean, with all his flip-flopping which you americans seem to dislike alot. And the whole issue about his enormous wealth and how he gained it. His low tax-rate and the fact that he likes to fire people. Doesnt that make him look exceedingly bad in the moderate voters view?

Mind you, this is a look from the other side of the pond, from socialist Europe

Regards
Defreni

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

To tell the truth, this looks like a very similar election to 2004 right now. By that I mean you have a somewhat vulnerable incumbent, who could be defeated by a very good candidate from another party. The problem is, it does not appear that the Republicans have such a candidate, in much the same way that the best the Democrats could come up with in 2004 was John Kerry. That's why you see such disparity in who the different states are voting for.

I have been unable to find reliable polling data from Minnesota - probably because their primary is still a ways off. However, there are four states that vote in the next two weeks, and I have found polls for them. The four states include two in the Midwest - Ohio and Michigan, one in the south - Georgia, and one the west - Arizona. The polls clarify nothing.

The only "sure thing" on that list appears to be Arizona. Arizona has a significant Mormon population, and unsurprisingly, Romney appears sure to win it. Gingrich holds a significant lead in Georgia - which is unsurprising given that he's from there, and tends to poll very well throughout the southeast. Santorum leads in Michigan - which is quite surprising because that's where Romney grew up. Ohio is a complete tossup. Technically, Gingrich leads in the polls, but he, Santorum, and Romney are all between 25%-29% (with Ron Paul getting much of the remaining 15% or so), so that state is a complete tossup.

This is a long winded way of saying that I don't know if ANY of the Republican candidates have a realistic shot of beating Obama. That said, I still believe Romney is their best option. Obama and the eventual Republican nominee are both guaranteed 40% of the vote from the word go. It's that 20% in the middle that will determine the winner of the election. So, it stands to reason that the most "moderate" of the Republican candidates (not that any of them are particularly moderate), will have the best chance of winning, and that person is Romney.

[Blackthorne TA]

But I've heard from Romney's own lips that he's "severely conservative"!

[Defreni1]

Originally Posted by Blackthorne TA

But I've heard from Romney's own lips that he's "severely conservative"!

And that is hillarious even for a non-native english speaker. But at least he didnt make a freudian slip aswell and said "severely constipated".

[T2Bruno]

Romney will also win Utah and Idaho (not really a big deal there). I expect he will win California as well (over 750,000 Mormons in CA).

[The Shaman]

Originally Posted by Blackthorne TA

But I've heard from Romney's own lips that he's "severely conservative"!

Sounds like a diagnosis, doesn't it ? It's probably even stronger than "acute conservative".

Meh, it's probably incorrect in his case, too. He should fire his doctor .

[LKD]

Originally Posted by T2Bruno

Romney will also win Utah and Idaho (not really a big deal there). I expect he will win California as well (over 750,000 Mormons in CA).

I was going to get pissy and say that not all Mormons will necessarily vote for Romney, but then I slapped myself and realized how unbelievably stupid that statement would be. Mormons overwhelmingly vote Republican, so in terms of the Presidential race per se he'd get their vote, as would Santorum, Gingrich, or even Paul if he got the nomination.

As for the nomination, Santorum's positions are likely anti-Mormon, and insulting to them to boot, so he's not likely to get the Mormon vote. Gingrich would likely be in the same boat. Paul might pick up a few, as to my knowledge he's never taken aim at the LDS faith.

There are some Democrat-leaning Mormons. But they are as difficult to find as hen's teeth.

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

Has Santorum made anti-Mormon statements? I do not think he would view Mormons as needing to be "saved". Afterall, while being staunchly religious, he's Catholic, not Evangelical.

[T2Bruno]

LKD, I was referring to the primaries. And while you are technically correct that not all Mormons will vote Romney, I would estimate at least 80% of all Mormon votes will go to Romney in the primaries.

The whole persecution complex the Mormons have pretty much guarantees any election where Mormon versus non-Mormon turns into an "us versus them" voting block -- I've seen it in Arizona (15 years living in Mesa), Idaho (met my ex there and the ex-in-laws lived there my entire marriage to her), and Utah (four years in SLC).

Aldeth, I haven't heard him say anything either but the Mormons believe the Catholic church is the "great evil" mentioned in the bible to turn people away from "the true church." When faced with voting for a "true believer" versus a person "influenced by the devil" I think we all know which way the vote will go (the same is true for those who believe Mormonism is a cult).

[LKD]

I don't know about the Catholic thing -- most Mormons that i know don't have much of a problem with modern Catholics anywhere outside of the theological sphere. In terms of public positions (opposition to homosexuality, opposition to abortion, etc) the two groups are practically identical. I can't imagine a Mormon choosing to NOT vote for a candidate solely because that candidate is a Catholic.

The sad fact is, though, that many Mormons will vote for the Mormon in a race just based on that fact alone. I've said before, it's stupid when black people do that for black candidates, when whites do it for white candidates, and when evangelicals do it for evangelical candidates. Same for Mormons.

I don't know if Santorum has or would make disparaging remarks about the LDS faith in an effort to gain votes. But if he were to do so, he could kiss a few Western States goodbye. But he'd clean up elsewhere!

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

The problem is that the candidates have such disparate support bases. Although this really is a two-person race at this point. Gingrich will stay in the campaign at least through Super Tuesday, but the fact remains he has almost no chance of winning anywhere outside of the southeastern section of the US. The only state he's won so far is South Carolina, and of the upcoming nomination contests prior to Super Tuesday, the only one that he is leading in the polls - and not by much - is Georgia. Georgia should really be considered a tossup however. While he is ahead, it's virtually a three-way tie between himself, Romney, and Santorum, and Gingrich's lead is within the poll's margin of error. So while Gingrich could win Georgia, and probably nearby states like North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee, I can't see his support going much past that.

Santorum seems to get most of his support from the Midwest and plains states. He seems like a safe bet at this point to win Ohio, and Oklahoma released it's first poll this week showing him with a commanding lead there as well. Michigan also presents an interesting case. Conventional wisdom would dictate a Romney win there, but it was actually Santorum that opened the polling with a double-digit lead. That lead has since been whittled down to about 5 points over Romney, so Michigan can go back to the tossup category. (Although it is still undoubtedly true that Michigan would be a much bigger loss for Romney than it would be to Santorum.)

Romney's support comes in two distinct flavors: He has support from Mormon voters in the west and Rocky Mountains, where they form a decent percentage of the electorate. He won Nevada handily, he is way ahead of everyone in the polls in Arizona, and he has to be considered the favorite in Utah, California, and New Mexico going forward. His other base is in New England and the Mid-Atlantic states - he's way ahead in Virginia's first poll released this week - although Santorum does poll well in his home state of Pennsylvania.

The one thing I don't particularly buy just yet is a brokered Republican convention. I think we need to get at least past Super Tuesday before we start talking about this. That would happen if none of the candidates receive a majority of delegates throughout the nomination process. The Republican nomination process is different from the Democratic process. Most of the Democratic nomination contests award their convention delegates on a proportional basis relative to the popular vote. The Republican nomination is much more like the electoral college, in that if you win the state, you win all the delegates. (Some states have a provision that in order to win all the delegates, you need to win a majority in the popular vote. In the case of a plurality that is short of a majority - which will happen at times with Gingrich still in the race - the delegates are then awarded proportionately.)

That's why I'm skeptical about a brokered convention - it essentially relies on the assumption that Gingrich stays in the race and wins a decent share of delegates along the way. While I feel that Gingirch doesn't have anywhere near enough support to win the nomination himself, if he can garner 10%-15% of the popular vote through this process, it may be enough to prevent either Romney or Santorum from earning a majority in some states, and thus have the delegates split three ways. If/when Gingrich drops out, the winner in each state will almost certainly also win a majority, and thus all the delegates.

But given the current polling numbers, that seems like a pretty big assumption, and Romney still has to be considered the favorite at this point. He's already won Florida, and will probably clean up in California and New York. Those are big population states that award a ton of delegates, and that's a lot for Santorum to make up. It would require Santorum to really clean up in Ohio and Pennsylvania, as well as winning everywhere else in the Midwest. Sure, he'll win a lot of the plains states as well, but those states don't have particularly large populations, and thus they don't award a lot of delegates. Texas is the only state with a large number of delegates between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains, so Santorum would probably have to win Texas too.

[Rotku]

So a brokered convention is one where there is no out-right winner? What happens in that situation?

[Death Rabbit]

Basically it means there is no one candidate who has won enough ballots during the primaries and caucuses to have a pre-existing majority going into the party's convention - and therefore clench the nomination outright - and so nominating votes will be collected at the convention. The wild card of such a situation is that a new candidate can be drafted on the floor of the convention and if that candidate wins a majority of the votes of the delegates present, that candidate will be the nominee.

Odds are that won't happen, but the chances of a brokered convention are more and more likely every day. The candidates I've heard most often mentioned as a possible draftee are Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, and – God help us – Sarah Palin. If the Republicans are smart, they'll ditch the current clowns and draft Jeb Bush, who actually would make a pretty decent President. Chris Christie is too much of a blowhard and Sarah Palin is a buffoon. Bush would give Obama a real run for his money - maybe even win outright, despite his brother's baggage. If not now, I fully expect Jeb to run in 2016. At least that's my hope - he represents a return to a sane, reality-based Republican party.

[Defreni1]

Originally Posted by Death Rabbit

Odds are that won't happen, but the chances of a brokered convention are more and more likely every day. The candidates I've heard most often mentioned as a possible draftee are Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, and – God help us – Sarah Palin. If the Republicans are smart, they'll ditch the current clowns and draft Jeb Bush, who actually would make a pretty decent President. Chris Christie is too much of a blowhard and Sarah Palin is a buffoon. Bush would give Obama a real run for his money - maybe even win outright, despite his brother's baggage. If not now, I fully expect Jeb to run in 2016. At least that's my hope - he represents a return to a sane, reality-based Republican party.

On what assumptions are you basing the last claim on? Because when Bush (43) ran for office, he was campaigning as a moderate social conservative. But even before 9/11 he was pushing a very radical agenda through.
Why should his brother be any different? And I am aware that their father Bush (41) was a sane reality-based Republican, but I am not convinced it is possible for any Republican to return to.....reality

[Death Rabbit]

For one, you can tell by hearing him speak and reading his writings that he indeed has a brain in his head and can think for himself, unlike his elder brother. Another is that he doesn't have a reputation for pandering to the baser elements of his party. And yet another is that he recently made waves when he said the following:

Originally Posted by Jeb Bush, February 24, 2012

“I used to be a conservative, and I watch these debates, and I’m wondering, I don’t think I’ve changed, but it’s a little troubling sometimes when people are appealing to people’s fears and emotion rather than trying to get them to look over the horizon for a broader perspective, and that’s kind of where we are."

I may not agree with all of his positions, but he is clearly a pragmatic, thoughtful man. Two qualities that simultaneously make the Republican base distrust him and the rest of the country at ease with him. It speaks volumes about the state of the party that these recent remarks were met with outrage and accusations of betrayal from much of the right. But that's how deeply into madness and unreality the GOP activist base has descended.

[LKD]

I saw Christie interviewed a while back -- he was saying he wasn't gonna try to get the Republican nomination. I thought he came across really well -- not a blowhard or a psycho. Like Romney, he came across like someone who had been a successful Governor and would bring that skill set to other offices. I'd support him before I'd support rabid psychos like Santorum or Gingrich.

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

Originally Posted by Death Rabbit

The wild card of such a situation is that a new candidate can be drafted on the floor of the convention and if that candidate wins a majority of the votes of the delegates present, that candidate will be the nominee.

Odds are that won't happen, but the chances of a brokered convention are more and more likely every day. The candidates I've heard most often mentioned as a possible draftee are Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, and – God help us – Sarah Palin.

If there actually is a brokered convention, it's not just possible, but likely that they'll pick someone who isn't among the current candidates. If they want to pick one of them, they'll orchestrate it ahead of time - not unlike how Hillary did it 2008 - when Obama was nominated through proclamation.

(To be fair, Obama did have a majority of delegates at the time of the convention, but not a super-majority as is usual. Hillary won enough states to garner nearly 40% of the delegate votes, and parties like to have their candidate look like the "unanimous" - for lack of a better term - choice. They want to at least give the appearance that the party is solidly behind the candidate.)

Originally Posted by DR

Jeb Bush, who actually would make a pretty decent President. Chris Christie is too much of a blowhard and Sarah Palin is a buffoon. Bush would give Obama a real run for his money - maybe even win outright, despite his brother's baggage. If not now, I fully expect Jeb to run in 2016.

I honestly don't think it matters who runs in 2012. While it hasn't exactly been smooth sailing for Obama since he took office, the economy is improving at the exact time he needs it to. If we keep adding jobs to the economy like we have over the past few months, it won't matter who the Republicans nominate.

Then factor in the incumbent advantage. One of the benefits to Obama of the Republican nomination dragging on for a long time is that it costs a lot of money to campaign. By wrapping up the nomination early, you can continue fund raising, and save up for the general election. Obama is fund raising right now as well, but he isn't spending anything yet. He'll have a war chest by the time the general election campaign ramps up.

Here's some numbers to put this in perspective. Of Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich, none have more than $8 million in cash on hand. They've been fund raising like crazy, but they've also been spending a lot of it on advertising, staffers, and campaign offices in various states. Public law requires all candidates to present the amount of money they have raised at least monthly. That's why we know of these figures, and Obama is required to release his figures as well. Obama has already raised $97 million - and he won't be spending any of that any time soon. This is not at all uncommon though - if we look back to the last time we had an incumbent running for re-election (W in 2004), Bush's number at a comparable point in the campaign was $103 million.

Originally Posted by LKD

I saw Christie interviewed a while back -- he was saying he wasn't gonna try to get the Republican nomination.

He has to say that at this point. It's too late in the process for him to get on the ballot in many states. In fact, he can't get on the ballot for any state voting on Super Tuesday. Even if he campaigned hard, his odds would be very long trying to win as a write-in candidate. Plus, it still remains unclear whether or not Romney or Santorum won't finish with a majority of the delegates. In such a case, it would be unprecedented for him to be nominated at the convention. For now, his only option is to bide his time and see what happens. (Personally, I don't know why he'd throw his hat into the ring at this point. His chances look more favorable in 2016.)

[The Shaman]

Originally Posted by Aldeth the Foppish Idiot

I honestly don't think it matters who runs in 2012. While it hasn't exactly been smooth sailing for Obama since he took office, the economy is improving at the exact time he needs it to. If we keep adding jobs to the economy like we have over the past few months, it won't matter who the Republicans nominate.

If he can, it will certainly help, but so far I'm not sure the US is on solid ground either. Unemployment was decreasing for a while, but the same thing happened on and off for a while before, as per this graph. On the other hand, it's usually winters that are hard and then things pick up during the spring.

If unemployment falls at least 1% in the year before the elections, Obama will have a huge advantage (afaik a similar thing happened in 1984). On the other hand, if things go bad just before the election, and there isn't an obvious reason why it has nothing to do with his policies, he might have it hard. I imagine he's keeping his fingers crossed that things stay calm on our end of the Atlantic.

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

I doubt it will drop that much. The economic predictions for this year are good, but they're not that good. Still as long as the economy is in decent shape - as in no worse than it is currently - Obama should be fine. Joe Biden was recently asked about the election year and the campaigning to start soon and what he thought about it. He quipped: "Osama is dead, and GM isn't."