GOP Nominee 2012 - Who Will It Be?, Pt. 4 - Page 22 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-10-2012, 05:21 PM   #316
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 02:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
I mean I can keep saying it but the more I do the more it's getting ignored.

Neither Gingrich nor Paul (or Santorum, really) stand a chance at winning a majority victory in delegates.

The goal is to get a brokered convention. Romney from here on out is a projected front-runner for a lot of states. The more Romney loses, the less chance he has at capturing a majority in delegates.

You don't think Ron Paul or Newt Gingrich are so stupid as to just hang around in the race despite having zero chance at getting more delegates than Mitt Romney at this point? Hell no. But they can deny Mitt Romney the bid by sticking around.
I think especially Newt Gingrich is that stupid. Or at least, that irrational. He seems to have this hate/need of some kind of revenge towards Romney. So he's staying in (he indicated he will go to Tampa with his campaign). But by staying in, he will help Romney getting the plurality in delegates.
He and Santorum seem to be splitting the conservative vote, allowing Romney to claim minimal victories. Would Gingrich drop out, then the majority of his 'votes' would then go to Santorum, probably winning states that otherwise would've gone to Romney.
__________________

__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 03-10-2012, 05:46 PM   #317
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 07:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
Neither Gingrich nor Paul (or Santorum, really) stand a chance at winning a majority victory in delegates.
Right but not even Romney can (taking all into consideration) feasibly get to the required number to get the nomination on the first ballot.

In fact, given the way things are going, there is a 99% chance Romney will not get the 1,144 no matter what happens in each particular state. That is, unless he starts suddenly blowing them out of the water and they drop out (not going to happen).

So the moral to the story is, there will almost certainly be a second ballot at the convention.
And right now the race is to make that particular argument.

As it stands, Romney will end up around 1,000 one way or another.
He will have a substantial argument no matter what, with that many delegates, and is very likely the nominee. Santorum (forget Gingrich) is hoping that he can make his voice heard at the convention with about 400 or so.

And so the dog and pony show over the next three months will continue. And nothing will really matter until the convention. So yeah, Santorum wins Kansas...Big deal. Hell even if he wins California, it wouldn't matter. Hell, even if he loses California, he can still make the same argument. With less credibility? Perhaps but the argument is going to be about Romney not being able to beat Obama.

Have you seen Romney's tax plan? I bet Santorum has.

Anyway, the math doesn't add up. While it is possible, it is almost improbable taken in proper context. Nobody can really win it.
And therefore, it is going to be decided by politicking.
That's not a "brokered convention" AFAIK, that's just the process.
__________________

__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 03-10-2012, 10:19 PM   #318
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,373
Local Time: 08:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Popmartijn View Post
I think especially Newt Gingrich is that stupid. Or at least, that irrational. He seems to have this hate/need of some kind of revenge towards Romney. So he's staying in (he indicated he will go to Tampa with his campaign). But by staying in, he will help Romney getting the plurality in delegates.
He and Santorum seem to be splitting the conservative vote, allowing Romney to claim minimal victories. Would Gingrich drop out, then the majority of his 'votes' would then go to Santorum, probably winning states that otherwise would've gone to Romney.
I don't think any politician is that stupid (maybe Sarah Palin). Irrational? Definitely. Stupid? No. Luckily, most politicians have someone rationalize these things for them.

I'm not sure if you're a Romney fan or what, but I think that 'hate' you're talking about is actually pretty common -- nobody wants a lying, dishonest, and just downright bad man like Mitt Romney who just tells you what you want to hear to become President.

You've got it all wrong though. Perhaps Gingrich might be stopping Santorum from winner-take-all states like Ohio, but ultimately Gingrich's strong showings in states where Santorum would not do as well (especially in the South) work to stop Mitt Romney much more than if Gingrich were to drop out. And it's not some 'revenge' that Gingrich is after. It's a bid. If this goes to a brokered convention, he wants to come out with the bid just like the other three candidates do. He's not just simply seeking revenge... that's silly. he still has a chance, all four do really.

Gingrich doesn't want Santorum to win, either. He's not doing something 'selfish' by any means. If Gingrich drops, there's a lot of people who think Santorum is insane (rightfully so). If any of the four candidates drop from this point on, the chances at a brokered convention are pretty muchzero. He's doing everyone else a favor by sticking around, including himself.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 03-10-2012, 10:34 PM   #319
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,373
Local Time: 08:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
Right but not even Romney can (taking all into consideration) feasibly get to the required number to get the nomination on the first ballot.

In fact, given the way things are going, there is a 99% chance Romney will not get the 1,144 no matter what happens in each particular state. That is, unless he starts suddenly blowing them out of the water and they drop out (not going to happen).

So the moral to the story is, there will almost certainly be a second ballot at the convention.
And right now the race is to make that particular argument.

As it stands, Romney will end up around 1,000 one way or another.
He will have a substantial argument no matter what, with that many delegates, and is very likely the nominee. Santorum (forget Gingrich) is hoping that he can make his voice heard at the convention with about 400 or so.

And so the dog and pony show over the next three months will continue. And nothing will really matter until the convention. So yeah, Santorum wins Kansas...Big deal. Hell even if he wins California, it wouldn't matter. Hell, even if he loses California, he can still make the same argument. With less credibility? Perhaps but the argument is going to be about Romney not being able to beat Obama.

Have you seen Romney's tax plan? I bet Santorum has.

Anyway, the math doesn't add up. While it is possible, it is almost improbable taken in proper context. Nobody can really win it.
And therefore, it is going to be decided by politicking.
That's not a "brokered convention" AFAIK, that's just the process.
I'm pretty sure you've got some things backwards here, but I'm no PolySci major so don't quote me.

I'm fairly certain Mitt Romney does in fact have a chance at getting the majority of delegates (and certainly would if Romney dropped out).

Also, you have to think about how if it ends up as a brokered convention, it's almost a free-for-all. All of those states... before the Santorum momentum... when Gingrich was on fire... those who are reconsidering delegates for or against Romney... anyone can win at Tampa if it gets there.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 03-10-2012, 10:59 PM   #320
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,373
Local Time: 08:02 PM
FWIW, the last brokered convention was the DNC in 1952, where the 2nd place candidate Adlai Stevenson won the bid in a 3rd round of voting.

The point behind this is that while a ton of people might want Mitt Romney, there isn't a majority to say yes to that. However, there very well could be a majority saying no to Mitt Romney. The RNC could choose anyone, really.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 03-10-2012, 11:15 PM   #321
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 07:02 PM
Quote:
I'm fairly certain Mitt Romney does in fact have a chance at getting the majority of delegates
I never said otherwise.

And "taking all into consideration" and "taken in proper context" is knowing that Santorum is not going anywhere. If you can't accept that much, maybe I shouldn't bother.

Quote:
While it is possible, it is almost improbable taken in proper context.
That's what I said.

Simply saying that something isn't feasible, means it is still possible. Those two ideas are not mutually exclusive. Of course it is mathematically possible. I am talking about a feasible assessment of the situation.

Quote:
"Anyone can win in Tampa if it gets there"
In 1984 Walter Mondale did not win enough delegates before the Democratic convention and yet he won the nomination on the first ballot without a "brokered convention". Ford did the same thing in 1976.

There are two instances of "before the convention"...
(#1) is while primaries are still occurring, say in April/May. And (#2) is after they've finished, say in July or August. I hope that clears a little bit up. Romney, as I said, "taking all into consideration", has an improbable path to getting the proper number of delegates during #1. The math doesn't add up, unless you start counting on improbable outcomes.

And he's going to have a very difficult time doing #2. What I am trying to say is that, if Romney get the nomination before the convention (during #2), it will be decided after all the votes have taken place in some horse-trading scenario. Just like Ford and Mondale.

That's what I was originally trying to say.
My next post will deal with the actual math of why #1 isn't feasible.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 03-10-2012, 11:21 PM   #322
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 07:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
FWIW, the last brokered convention was the DNC in 1952, where the 2nd place candidate Adlai Stevenson won the bid in a 3rd round of voting.
.
I'm not certain about a brokered convention.
I am fairly sure that he won't have the first ballot votes.
Sorry for the confusion, I could have articulated it all better.

I said this:

Quote:
And therefore, it is going to be decided by politicking.
That's not a "brokered convention" AFAIK, that's just the process.
By "politicking" I am talking about the same thing that helped Gerald Ford in 1976, short of delegates before the convention (#1), maneuver to get them before the convention (#2).

I do understand that I mentioned not having enough on the first vote.
That's sort of 'mixing' two ideas there.

Two distinct arguments, really.
My fault.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 03-10-2012, 11:33 PM   #323
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,373
Local Time: 08:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
I never said otherwise.

And "taking all into consideration" and "taken in proper context" is knowing that Santorum is not going anywhere. If you can't accept that much, maybe I shouldn't bother.
Umm... was that supposed to suggest that I am a fan of Rick Santorum or something?


Quote:
Simply saying that something isn't feasible, means it is still possible. Those two ideas are not mutually exclusive. Of course it is mathematically possible. I am talking about a feasible assessment of the situation.
It is indeed feasible that Mitt Romney gains support in order to avoid the thought of a brokered convention, and he walks out with the majority in delegates before the 2012 RNC in Tampa. I wouldn't bet on it, but it's possible.



Quote:
There are two instances of "before the convention"...
(#1) is while primaries are still occurring, say in April/May. And (#2) is after they've finished, say in July or August. I hope that clears a little bit up. Romney, as I said, "taking all into consideration", has an improbable path to getting the proper number of delegates during #1. The math doesn't add up, unless you start counting on improbable outcomes.
It's pretty improbable given the current situation, I completely agree. But given a swing in momentum, or god forbid a drop with a candidate, it's entirely possible that Mitt Romney gets that majority.

Quote:
And he's going to have a very difficult time doing #2. What I am trying to say is that, if Romney get the nomination before the convention (during #2), it will be decided after all the votes have taken place in some horse-trading scenario. Just like Ford and Mondale.
Okay and here is where I'm going to use the same point over again that I posted earlier. While Mitt Romney might have the largest delegate count, there's probably a majority in opposition to Romney. I really don't think the Republican National Committee will have the faith in Romney to try and convince the delegates to back Romney instead of somebody else.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 03-10-2012, 11:35 PM   #324
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,373
Local Time: 08:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
I do understand that I mentioned not having enough on the first vote.
That's sort of 'mixing' two ideas there.

Two distinct arguments, really.
My fault.
Okay well yes, I agree with most of what you were saying in that case.

But my original case was that if and when Romney doesn't have enough delegates and everyone stays as stubborn as they are right now and nobody budges in Romney's favor, if the convention is brokered, it's almost like the votes of the people didn't even matter.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 03-11-2012, 12:44 AM   #325
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 07:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
Umm... was that supposed to suggest that I am a fan of Rick Santorum or something?
No? It just means that he isn't going anywhere before the convention.
And if he isn't going anywhere, then Romney likely has no feasible path to get the delegates before the convention. Because Santorum should have a decent stack of delegates and he'll know that, even more than ever, Romney-apathy will still exist. In other words, with Santorum simply still being in the race in June (or later) all by itself means that Romney-apathy didn't subside.

And it probably won't, but we shall see.

I skipped the other replies because we seem to be close to being on the same page. Right? Well, close enough anyway.

I have done some of the delegate math while I sit here and watch SNL.
I'm sure it will be interesting to a few people...maybe.
Will post soon...
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 03-11-2012, 12:58 AM   #326
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 07:02 PM
Using round numbers for ease...
Romney currently needs about 760 delegates to seal the deal.
His absolute, sunshine-pumping, IDEAL (remaining) delegate total is right about 900. I am talking pretty optimistic on that 900 number.

And here is how I arrived there:
Proportional States Romney should do well in
Hawaii 20
Illinois 69
New York 95
Pennsylvania 72
Rhode Island 19
North Carolina 55 (just to err on the idealistic side)
Oregon 28
New Mexico 23

I gave him 60% of all those delegates, even including Santorum's Pennsylvania just for the hell of it. So it is a total of 230.

All remaining Winner-Take-All States/districts
Yes, I gave him ALL of them, even those where only the congressional districts are WTA.

Puerto Rico 23
Maryland 37
DC 19
Wisconsin 42
Connecticut (congressional districts only) 28
Delaware 17
Indiana (congressional districts only) 46
California 172
New Jersey 50
Utah 40

For a total of 474

The Ten Proportional States where Not-Romney/Santorum should do well
Alabama 50,
Mississippi, 40
Louisiana, 46
West Virginia, 31
Arkansas, 36
Kentucky 45,
Texas 155,
South Dakota 28,
Nebraska 35
Montana. 26
I gave Romney 40% of these delegates for a total of about 200.


The three subtotals: 200, 474, 230, rounded off to a nice clean 900.


So the absolute ideal gives Romney about +140 more than he needs.
none of this includes Missouri, which I couldn't figure out how to count in.

He loses, California*, he doesn't have enough all by itself (even with the IDEAL intact otherwise). Another scenario is; He loses Indiana, and Pennsylvania (flipping that 20%), that knocks at least 60 off. He doesn't carry 40% of the delegates in the Deep South, in either MS, LA, AL, AR, let's say 30%. That's another 80 or so off. There's 140 right there (even with the IDEAL intact otherwise).

I could keep going and going. Because of the strange process, you can have committed/uncomitted bound/nonbound and all sorts of shit.

Think about momentum. 7 contests through the rest of March. Santorum should dominate. Over the next two weeks, there is Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri and Louisiana.
Then 8 more in April that should all be good for Romney. Then May 8th, Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia. After Oregon, then 'Not Romney' contests. Arkansas, Kentucky and the massive Texas (155 delegates).
Basically the point is, it will be swinging back and forth. And the media will PIMP this as a fight regardless.

Lastly*, Republicans in winner-take-all California may very well go for Santorum. Karl Rove thinks so. Because once you get outside of major metropolitan areas (as is true across the nation) the majority of vote determines it and has gone to Not Romney (Santorum). Moral to the story is, if Santorum is alive by California, he will have persevered through and continued to win (as opposed to tossing the towel in).

Romney can't get more than 28% anywhere in the South/Central/North states.
When the Gingrich Goose is finally cooked, look to see what happened in the one analogue that exists. In Missouri, when Santorum was still a fledgling 'Not Romney' he clocked Romney by 30 points w/o Newt on the ballot. If you know anything about Missouri, it's a fairly purple 'bellweather' state. But the Republicans there, as in California, are true conservative. Again...I could go all night saying, X, Y or Z. All you really need to know is that under the MOST IDEAL situation, California is a must win for Romney to seal the deal on his own. And then I would ask you to think about that Proposition 8 or whatever it was w/r/t to how conservative the whole of California is.

EVEN AFTER ALL THAT...it doesn't figure any growing voter apathy towards Romney at all. Buyers remorse will either set in or disappear. I typed all this over commercial breaks and weak sketches during 90 minutes of SNL. I hope someone found it useful.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 03-11-2012, 01:36 AM   #327
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,373
Local Time: 08:02 PM
Ah, excuse me. I thought you were saying he's not going anywhere as in the presidency. I was wondering what you were getting at in that case...

But yes, we're on the same page.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 03-12-2012, 10:17 PM   #328
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 07:02 PM
I'm suffering through GOP debate withdrawl.

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 03-12-2012, 10:20 PM   #329
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 08:02 PM
I'm watching "Game Change" again.

Julianne Moore is genius.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-12-2012, 10:29 PM   #330
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,730
Local Time: 05:02 PM
I'm watching it right now.

Totally agree.
__________________

__________________
corianderstem is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com