Politics 2012: The GOP Nominating Race

[OldPhiKap]

Despite Santorum's two wins a week ago, I get the feeling this thing is about to be over.

Every time I say that . . . .

I think after Illinois it swings back to some areas that Romney struggles (Louisiana, for example). It is mathematically difficult for anyone other than Romney to get to the magic 1144 (or whatever it is). BUT it is far from certain that Romney will get there, either, which brings up the prospect of an open convention. As long as there is a significant anti-Romney feeling out there, someone will fund Rick or Newt to fight on. And I think both will fight on as long as the money is there and there is a chance that they can get to a convention with Romney held short of the goal line.

[theAlaskanBear]

Every time I say that . . . .

I think after Illinois it swings back to some areas that Romney struggles (Louisiana, for example). It is mathematically difficult for anyone other than Romney to get to the magic 1144 (or whatever it is). BUT it is far from certain that Romney will get there, either, which brings up the prospect of an open convention. As long as there is a significant anti-Romney feeling out there, someone will fund Rick or Newt to fight on. And I think both will fight on as long as the money is there and there is a chance that they can get to a convention with Romney held short of the goal line.

Heres a question: Could this be an angle to the vice-presidency? You gotta think that conservatives would go to Romney if he wins the nomination and say, "Hey, you need this to unite the party and excite the base..."

But can any get excited about a VP?

[Olympic Fan]

Heres a question: Could this be an angle to the vice-presidency? You gotta think that conservatives would go to Romney if he wins the nomination and say, "Hey, you need this to unite the party and excite the base..."

But can any get excited about a VP?

After watching "the Game Changer" I got to thinking about the Republican VP options this time. Will we get another white male to run with the white male nominee? Is there a woman or (even rarer in the Republican Party) a black candidate to run with Romney/Santorum/Gingrich? I could see Herman Cain on the ticket if hadn't run early and been (negatively) vetted by the process.

I think the pressure to pick a non-white (Hispanic?)/or female running mate would be greater for Santorum or Gingrich. Romney might be under some pressure to pick a hard-core conservative to shore up a base that clearly doesn't trust him. On the other hand, that makes it even tougher to appeal to the unaffiliated middle that he'll need in the general election.

It's going to be an interesting choice. I do think that after the Palin experiene, this year's nominee will be more careful about vetting his running mate.

[Bluedog]

I think Romney gets an 8-12 point win tonight in Illinois. Some polls think it will be more like 15 points. The is another state where Santorum did not have the money to organize properly so he is unable to get delegates in several districts. As a result, even if Santorum were to make it closer or possibly win, he is not likely to beat Mitt in the delegate math tonight.

Yeah, I was looking at a sample ballot in my district and noticed that Santorum has no delegates to vote for. So, basically, it's another "beauty contest" for vote for Santorum in this area. Paul has them, though. Seems pretty surprising that, yet again like Virginia, Paul has far better organization than Santorum - must be because he's a Duke grad. I didn't realize one votes for "Candidate of the Republican Party for President" and for "Delegate to the Republican National Nominating Convention". So, one could technically vote for Romney and then vote for Paul's delegates, and Paul picks them up instead of Romney. I still haven't decided if I'm going to pick up the Democratic or Republican ballot - Republican has no other contests basically except President. The Democratic ballot has a fair number of judges contests, but still nothing terribly interesting...

[gus]

Heres a question: Could this be an angle to the vice-presidency? You gotta think that conservatives would go to Romney if he wins the nomination and say, "Hey, you need this to unite the party and excite the base..."

But can any get excited about a VP?

Ugh. the interwebs just swallowed a long post I wrote about VPs since 1968. I'm not rewriting it.

My bottom line was that I don't think the bottom half of the ticket matters at all, except in instances where it hurts the candidate (McCain). The only election where I think the VP might have helped was Agnew in '68.

[Olympic Fan]

My bottom line was that I don't think the bottom half of the ticket matters at all, except in instances where it hurts the candidate (McCain). The only election where I think the VP might have helped was Agnew in '68.

Not sure I agree. In think your point -- that we tend to over-value the VP pick -- has some merit, but it's not inconsequetial either. In a way, it's the first big decision that a President has to make ... and the public is quick to judge him on that choice.

Yeah, I think the mass of the electorate lost a bit of respect for McCain in 2008 when he linked himself to the clearly unqualified Palin. But what about McGovern and Eagleton? Don't think McGovern wins anyway, but the Eagleton farce turned it into rout. I think picking (and sticking with) Dan Quayle hurt the senior Bush in '88 and '92 -- obviously not enough to cost him the election in '88 ... but did it play a role in '92?

Historically, I suspect it has had an impact in a number of elections -- no doubt having Johnson on the ticket in 1960 helped Kennedy edge Nixon in a close election.

Overall, I would suggest that the most important thing is to make a "safe" pick. Most of the times I think a VP choice has impacted the election were in Palin/Eagleton situations, when the candidate made a clearly bad choice.

Beyond that, if it is a close election, a key figure who could help win an important (and close) swing state could help -- anybody like that from Ohio or Florida (Crist?).

But, I agree, the idea of "balancing the ticket" or "energizing the base" seem to be a bit overrated.

[rasputin]

Not sure I agree. In think your point -- that we tend to over-value the VP pick -- has some merit, but it's not inconsequetial either. In a way, it's the first big decision that a President has to make ... and the public is quick to judge him on that choice.

Yeah, I think the mass of the electorate lost a bit of respect for McCain in 2008 when he linked himself to the clearly unqualified Palin. But what about McGovern and Eagleton? Don't think McGovern wins anyway, but the Eagleton farce turned it into rout. I think picking (and sticking with) Dan Quayle hurt the senior Bush in '88 and '92 -- obviously not enough to cost him the election in '88 ... but did it play a role in '92?

Historically, I suspect it has had an impact in a number of elections -- no doubt having Johnson on the ticket in 1960 helped Kennedy edge Nixon in a close election.

Overall, I would suggest that the most important thing is to make a "safe" pick. Most of the times I think a VP choice has impacted the election were in Palin/Eagleton situations, when the candidate made a clearly bad choice.

Beyond that, if it is a close election, a key figure who could help win an important (and close) swing state could help -- anybody like that from Ohio or Florida (Crist?).

But, I agree, the idea of "balancing the ticket" or "energizing the base" seem to be a bit overrated.

The Eagleton "farce" was McGovern's treatment of him after it hit the fan--first he was a "thousand percent" for Eagleton, the next thing you knew Shriver was the running mate. If McGovern had stuck with Tom Eagleton, who was a fine man, the result would have been better (although there's no way he wins).

[luvdahops]

Not sure I agree. In think your point -- that we tend to over-value the VP pick -- has some merit, but it's not inconsequetial either. In a way, it's the first big decision that a President has to make ... and the public is quick to judge him on that choice.

Yeah, I think the mass of the electorate lost a bit of respect for McCain in 2008 when he linked himself to the clearly unqualified Palin. But what about McGovern and Eagleton? Don't think McGovern wins anyway, but the Eagleton farce turned it into rout. I think picking (and sticking with) Dan Quayle hurt the senior Bush in '88 and '92 -- obviously not enough to cost him the election in '88 ... but did it play a role in '92?

Historically, I suspect it has had an impact in a number of elections -- no doubt having Johnson on the ticket in 1960 helped Kennedy edge Nixon in a close election.

Overall, I would suggest that the most important thing is to make a "safe" pick. Most of the times I think a VP choice has impacted the election were in Palin/Eagleton situations, when the candidate made a clearly bad choice.

Beyond that, if it is a close election, a key figure who could help win an important (and close) swing state could help -- anybody like that from Ohio or Florida (Crist?).

But, I agree, the idea of "balancing the ticket" or "energizing the base" seem to be a bit overrated.

Quayle definitely hurt HW in '92. The VP debate that year - Gore, Quayle and Admiral Stockdale - was one of the most bizarre ever. Stockdale (a fine man) was utterly unprepared, and Quayle was memorably described as "a robot on laughing gas" for his uncharacteristically aggressive and animated approach. In my view, DQ tended to be unfairly mocked and vilified by the media, but on that night he earned it.

[rasputin]

Quayle definitely hurt HW in '92. The VP debate that year - Gore, Quayle and Admiral Stockdale - was one of the most bizarre ever. Stockdale (a fine man) was utterly unprepared, and Quayle was memorably described as "a robot on laughing gas" for his uncharacteristically aggressive and animated approach. In my view, DQ tended to be unfairly mocked and vilified by the media, but on that night he earned it.

And, of course, Quayle was stung by the "you're no Jack Kennedy" line from the debate with Bentsen; Quayle had been fighting the perception that he was a lightweight by pointing out that he was the same age as JFK had been, etc., and Bentsen was ready for more of it. Adding to this image issue was the perception that he was a poor-little-rich-boy type, and a "chicken hawk" to boot.

[OldPhiKap]

Ferraro probably helped Mondale, although it didn't help enough.

VP probably helps win his/her state, and a choice of "first X" probably helps with voter block X.

Marco Rubio, I bet you're at least getting a few calls.

[OldPhiKap]

Nate Silver with tweet of the night:

Romney unable to break through with key constituencies tonight, like voters who do not like Mitt Romney.

[JasonEvans]

This was a big win for Romney. He is going to get the lion's share of the delegates and the delegate math is starting to just kill Santorum. I think more importantly than Romney winning was that Santorum didn't win. It has been clear for a little while now that Satorum needs something BIG to change the race. Winning Illinois would have done that. But, he didn't and now Mitt is going to look even more like the certain nominee.

One thing I wonder is how much longer Newt will stick around. I mean, it looks like he is going to come in at less than 10% in Illinois. What is he doing in the race at this point?

-Jason "minus Gingrich, Romney still wins tonight" Evans

[OldPhiKap]

One thing I wonder is how much longer Newt will stick around. I mean, it looks like he is going to come in at less than 10% in Illinois. What is he doing in the race at this point?

"No one defeats the Black Knight! I am invincible!"

[El_Diablo]

One thing I wonder is how much longer Newt will stick around. I mean, it looks like he is going to come in at less than 10% in Illinois. What is he doing in the race at this point?

He knows he has no chance to win it himself, but he's just trying to force a brokered convention. If he drops out, most of his support probably goes to Santorum, but some of it will inevitably go to Romney too. With the delegate math as it is, that may end up putting Romney over the edge to seal it up before the convention. By staying in, however, Gingrich can continue to steal some of Romney's votes that Santorum would not be able to get on his own because the two of them together can cover a little more of the electorate than just one of them. And in the end he will still be able to release those delegates to support Santorum. Or he can release them to Romney in exchange for [fill in the blank].

The drawback to playing a nickle-and-dime game with the delegates in this manner is that it better allows Romney to claim "victories" in primaries in which he only receives a plurality of the vote, which contributes to feelings of inevitability and may end up getting him to 1144 by early June anyway. But then again, Newt's super-donor, Sheldon Adelson, has already said he will shift his support to Romney if/when Newt drops out, even going so far to say that he will give even more generously to Mitt Romney. So perhaps Newt is mainly just being used as a pawn here in the behind-the-scenes battle between the GOP establishment and the tea partiers and social conservatives, with Newt being strung along with just enough money to stay in the race and ensure a more palatable candidate competes with Obama in November.

[Tom B.]

This was a big win for Romney. He is going to get the lion's share of the delegates and the delegate math is starting to just kill Santorum. I think more importantly than Romney winning was that Santorum didn't win. It has been clear for a little while now that Satorum needs something BIG to change the race. Winning Illinois would have done that. But, he didn't and now Mitt is going to look even more like the certain nominee.

Can Santorum stay viable long enough for the Texas primary? That would be big, and the demographics of the Republican electorate there make it within his reach. Of course, it's also a big state that's expensive to run in, so theoretically Romney's advantages in money and organization would give him a leg up.

[El_Diablo]

Can Santorum stay viable long enough for the Texas primary? That would be big, and the demographics of the Republican electorate there make it within his reach. Of course, it's also a big state that's expensive to run in, so theoretically Romney's advantages in money and organization would give him a leg up.

Texas delegates are allocated proportionally, so even a Santorum win there would have very little overall effect on the delegate math. With a big enough win, he might gain 20 or 30 delegates on Romney, but to put that in perspective, Romney just got 20 from Puerto Rico (compared to Santorum's 0). Romney's practically guaranteed to win Utah's 40 winner-take-all delegates, and he's going to be very tough to beat in the other winner-take-all races (NJ, DC, Maryland).

[Duvall]

Romney attacked as an "Etch-A-Sketch" candidate that can hit the reset button on his positions at any time.

Wait, sorry - that was from Romney's spokesperson.

<facepalm>

[JasonEvans]

Romney's practically guaranteed to win Utah's 40 winner-take-all delegates, and he's going to be very tough to beat in the other winner-take-all races (NJ, DC, Maryland).

I think Santorum's last stand is April 3 - Maryland, DC, and Wisconsin. DC is winner take all 16 delegates and the other two are winner take all by congressional district. He has to have a contest where he makes a real dent in the delegate math. He needs to squeak out some winner-take-all victories to do that.

I have not seen DC or Maryland polls, but the recent polls from Wisconsin seem Santorum-favorable. Of course, DC and Maryland are states that would seem to be pretty Romney-friendly as they are the beginning of the Northeast, which has been Romney's strongest region.

Should Rick somehow have success on April 3, it keeps him alive and viable for the April 24 primaries that include his home Pennsylvania as well as the very rich delegate prize of NY. Romney will win the big cities in NY, but there are a lot of GOP votes in outlying New York that could give Rick a chance.

It is a longshot scenario, but the only one I can see where he has a chance to stop Romney from clinching the nomination.

-Jason "Wisconsin and Maryland... those are the key to starting all this" Evans

[Tom B.]

I think Santorum's last stand is April 3 - Maryland, DC, and Wisconsin. DC is winner take all 16 delegates and the other two are winner take all by congressional district. He has to have a contest where he makes a real dent in the delegate math. He needs to squeak out some winner-take-all victories to do that.

I have not seen DC or Maryland polls, but the recent polls from Wisconsin seem Santorum-favorable. Of course, DC and Maryland are states that would seem to be pretty Romney-friendly as they are the beginning of the Northeast, which has been Romney's strongest region.

Wisconsin could be interesting. There were some polls that looked good for Santorum, but they were a while ago (the most recent poll for Wisconsin in Nate Silver's compilation of state-by-state polls was ath the end of February). Jason, have you seen any that are more recent? Wonder if the result in neighboring Illinois will have any effect on sentiments in Wisconsin.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Of course, DC and Maryland are states that would seem to be pretty Romney-friendly as they are the beginning of the Northeast, which has been Romney's strongest region.

Woohooo!!! DC is finally 51!!

Agreed on Romney and DC, but not because of the geography, but simply due to the high concentration of liberalism. I can't see a majority going for such a staunch conservative as Santorum.