Sunday, February 26, 2012

Romney on delegate prospects: Where does he stand?

by Clifford F. Thies

I heard that Romney's people are passing the word out that they don't expect to wrap this up the nomination anytime soon. So, I projected what, under an optimistic assumptions for him, are his prospects.

For example, this Tuesday, it is reasonable for Romney to pick up all of Arizona's delegates and half of Michigan's. Arizona is Winner-Take-All (WTA). Michigan is WTA at the Congressional District level, and proportional at the At Large level. Given the gerrymandering of the state, it would be easy for the CD's to split evenly, Romney and Santorum.

Projections after Tuesday get difficult because the rules for awarding delegates differ so much from one state to another, because I have no idea of the backroom shenanigans at conventions, and because of "unpledged" delegates. But, with a whole lot of assumptions, I project, under optimistic assumptions for Romney, that he doesn't clinch the nomination until June 6, when California votes, among other states.

Some interesting factoids worked into my projections: (1) California - WTA, (2) Texas - proportional, (3) Virginia - neither Gingrich nor Santorum is on the ballot (to lesser extents, IL, IN and OH are also affected by ballot status issues).

Even with my optimistic assumptions for Romney, he has little margin for error.


jgeleff said...

I've read that committed delegate count is Romney 92, Paul 83, and the other two big government slobbering jizzbags in the 20's.

Eric Dondero said...

You've read wrong. Paul has 14 delegates. Romney has 121.

After tomorrow, Romney will be close to 200. Paul will still be at 14. Santorum likely to go up a bit to the mid-50s range.

Eric Dondero said...

BTW, Paul = Big Government on Foreign Policy (Support through Appeasement of Islamism and Sharia Law)

Santorum, Gingrich = Big Government on Social Policy(staunch oppositition to Islamism and Sharia Law)

Romney = Limited Government on Economic Policy, moderately Limited Government on Social Policy, Limited Government on Foreign Policy (staunch opposition to Islamism and Sharia Law)

Eric Dondero said...

There, corrected that for ya Jerry.

Jarod said...

Eric, you're either high, stupid, or both.

Tom said...

"BTW, Paul = Big Government on Foreign Policy (Support through Appeasement of Islamism and Sharia Law)"

Um, how is that big government? If anything, it means the private sector can take up the mantle of countering Sharia/Islamic propaganda. Frankly, our private sector is well-equipped for that- Hollywood and our advertising industry is by far and away the best in the world.

I don't necessarily agree thats' the way to go- though it's wroth considering when you see what an awful job our government's obviously done at containing islam around the world- but to call Paul a big government figure because of that is absurd.

jgeleff said...

Eric is wrong on his "big government" slap against Ron Paul. Nothing there that even really makes sense. If he used the power of government to make Sharia Law come to America, then THAT would be big government. Sorry Eric, you're exactly backwards here.
And the delegate count you gave is incorrect too, but since we can't get a straight answer out of anybody in the media, the truth probably lies somewhere in between my numbers and yours, Eric.