I have to wonder if Romney cleans-up in the northeast even if he implodes...

I suspect only Christie or Giuliani could trump Romney in some of these blue states that won't matter in the general election. Even Daniels would probably struggle in them.

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast

---

by: andyroo312 @ Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 22:52:14 PM UTC

Romney is counting on those states

in the Northeast, and California.  For some odd reason, a lot of those states are winner take all in the GOP primaries, or district take all which often turns a small victory into a blowout delegate win.  That was how McCain got so far ahead on Super Tuesday...he racked up the winner take all states.

Romney's struggle will be to win the nomination while getting annihilated in the South.  But it certainly could be done...for instance, I could envision Huckabee winning Iowa, Romney taking New Hampshire, Huckabee taking South Carolina, and then Romney sweeping on Super Tuesday.

---

by: skaje @ Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 23:58:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Republicans really have a screwy system...

... of picking delegates. Either have all states use winner take all or have all states use proportional allocation, using a combination of both systems gives some states a much larger role in the process.  

"Where free Unions and collective bargaining is forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan

---

by: MinnesotaMike @ Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 01:03:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Truly

in 2008, Romney and McCain both won their respective home states by about the same margin.  Yet Romney only netted 4 delegates from Massachusetts, while McCain got all 50 delegates from Arizona.

Pure madness.

---

by: skaje @ Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 03:45:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Precisely, and this is why a religious right Republican has difficulty surviving the primaries

The system is set-up in a fashion that's really quite favorable to center-right, rank-and-file-friendly Republicans. Sure, Iowa and South Carolina can produce victory for right-wing candidates, but even victories in both of those hardly ensures success on Super Tuesday. With this in mind, I find it very difficult to believe Palin, Huckabee, Barbour, Bachmann or Santorum could win the nomination. Even Gingrich might to be too out-there to win. Now, in all fairness, someone like Huntsman wouldn't be embraced either, given he'll be viewed as too left-wing. Perhaps Giuliani, too.

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast

---

by: andyroo312 @ Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 01:22:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm surprised there isn't more teabagger noise about this

The completely irrelevant in November blue states control the GOP nomination process.  

---

by: tommypaine @ Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 01:26:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This all changed in 2010, and old patterns aren't reliable anymore......

There's no doubt one or two hard right candidates will emerge and do well, and probably derail Romney if another establishment GOPer doesn't derail him first.

Thing is, you can't count on the primary electorates behaving the way they used to.  I wouldn't assume a teabagger/wingnut won't surprise and win a state like NH or NV or FL.

After Delaware 2010, all bets are off.

Here's another thought:  with the economy suddenly seeming to kick into 3rd gear, and Obama's reelection assured if it doesn't prove a false start, does that make rank-and-file GOPers go further right than if Obama still seems to be struggling?  If the race looks more winnable, do they swallow some pride in favor of electability?  If it's less winnable, do they say "fuck it!" and nominate ideological purity?

I have to think chances of winning as defined partly by Obama's standing will have something to do with Republican primary voting behavior.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 03:13:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Could work both ways

If it looks more winnable, the GOP could get cocky and nominate ideological purity, as in 2010. Indeed, it's been argued some GOPers are underestimating Obama, so that could be more likely.

---

by: Ebjebie @ Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 19:02:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Could work both ways

If it looks more winnable, the GOP could get cocky and nominate ideological purity, as in 2010. Indeed, it's been argued some GOPers are underestimating Obama, so that could be more likely.

---

by: Ebjebie @ Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 19:09:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This has definitely been the pattern

but things might be changing, with the GOP parties of blue states also turning pretty hard-right recently.  The old-style, moderate GOP state parties of the northeast are falling to the same trends as GOP state parties elsewhere.

Mike Castle losing to Christine O'Donnell.  Rick Lazio losing to Carl Paladino.

It can happen.  Palin could very well beat Romney in New York (not saying it's likely, just that it isn't as comical to suggest as it would have been 10 years ago).

---

by: skaje @ Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 03:29:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Palin beat Romney in NEW YORK?

Paladino was very unique, in that he was a Buffalo native (very helpful in a GOP primary), running against Lazio, who even the rank-and-file wasn't crazy about. Since Lazio was (seemingly) way up in the polls, the unenthused rank-and-file felt minimal need to even bother GOTV. Turnout was ridiculously low, with only the hardcore Tea Partiers showing up, and, thus, the 2 to 1 blowout. That won't happen in a presidential year.

Besides '10, keep in mind, 74% of the New York GOP primary vote in '08 went to McCain, Romney and Giuliani. Huckabee garnered an entire 11% of the vote. I sense no adoration to Palin by really anyone in NY. Her favorability among Republicans is probably below 50% here, and even some of the Paladino crowd would feel comfortable voting for Romney. Palin might find some support (as in, like 25% of the vote) in Western New York, but Romney would win everywhere else big time. If Giuliani and Christie don't run, I expect Romney to get 60% of the vote here.  

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast

---

by: andyroo312 @ Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 05:27:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

andyroo, 2008 doesn't matter, 2010 is more relevant for evaluating GOP primaries......

It's true rank-and-file GOPers could revert to previous form and become more supportive of establishmentarians.

But that's not a reliable prediction, not by a longshot.

Every region of the country went hard right in primaries last year, and it's very plausible they could do so again.  They're probably emboldened by getting so many teabaggers elected to the House, retaking the House, and getting Rand Paul elected to Senate.  I don't think they learned any lessons from losses like Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, and Christine O'Donnell.

By all rights people like Newt and Barbour are terrible candidates, Newt a D-lister and Barbour a C-lister, and yet O'Donnell was a clear-cut F and won her primary anyway.  So don't be surprised to see crazies dominate primaries.

Remember that even establishment-friendly New Hampshire once voted for racist, anti-Semitic, and unserious Pat Buchanan over superior alternatives.  This easily could happen in every region next year.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 17:30:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pat Buchanan's strength in NH was bizarre

He had previously challenged incumbent President Bush Sr. in 1992, and though he won no states, he held Bush to a 53%-37% win in NH.  And then as you mention, he beat Dole in NH in 1996.

---

by: skaje @ Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 02:25:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

In all fairness, I think Buchanan merely benefitted from vote-splitting in the early stretch

He won the New Hampshire primary with a rather modest 27%, while the mainstream, rank-and-file Dole/Alexander/Forbes/Lugar combined for 65%. I suspect that 27% is actually perhaps reflective of the right-wing Tea Party force in NH today. After all, Buchanan's base in '96 was basically the Tea Party before there was a Tea Party. A right-winger like Buchanan only triumphs in a state like New Hampshire under the most perfect storm.

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast

---

by: andyroo312 @ Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 06:38:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That vote-splitting is set to happen again, and today's wingnuts are stronger than Buchanan......

The 2012 field is badly fractured already, and it's easy to see a small plurality carrying NH.

In fact McCain was only in the 30s in NH, SC, and FL.

And Gingrich and perhaps one or two other wingnuts (e.g., Palin, Huckabee) will be stronger than Buchanan.  There are substantial numbers of hard right GOPers who actually want Gingrich or other crazies to be President; Buchanan, in contrast, was just a protest candidate even among most of his own voters.

The presumption that NH will be won by Romney or another establishmentarian is misplaced.  There's no telling who will rise to the top there under the current volatility of the GOP electorate.  If I had to bet real money on who carries the state, I'd say Romney, but I'd place that bet with a lot of nervousness, and I'd expect him to win with support only in the 30s or even the 20s in a divided field.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 15:32:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There are still unknowns

while I agree that Tea Party types make up more of the R party today

It's uncertain whether their votes will be more split than those who would vote for moderates.

e.g. If the race is between Palin/Gingrich/Huckabee/Cain/Santorum/Paul/Barbour splitting the Tea Party vote
(maybe 60% of the NH Pres Primary electorate?)

and

Romney/Pawlenty/Daniels splitting the moderate vote (maybe 40% of the NH Pres Primary electorate?)

it's quite possible that a "moderate" would win the NH primary with something in the low 20s.

---

by: tietack @ Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 16:44:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The thing is, with no Democratic primary, more moderate Indies will partake in the GOP primary

In '08, only 55% of the NH GOP primary voters were self-described conservative. Factoring in the Tea Party surge and no Democratic primary, I'd wager that about holds this time. As I just mentioned over at RRH, I think there is an opening for a Tea Party candidate to prevail here with 30%, but it would probably take every single "moderate" candidate running (Romney, Christie, Daniels, Giuliani) for that to occur. And, you would need a bunch of Tea Party-friendly candidates to bow out after Iowa...you couldn't have Cain and Santorum still in there, garnering 10% combined in NH.

FWIW, I don't think Palin or Huckabee run, and Barbour and Pawlenty will fizzle-out rather fast. I don't think NH is prime territory at all for Gingrich. Paul will garner about 7%. Keep in mind, a lot of the NH Tea Party is actually behind Romney...he's got Jack Kimball and Ovide Lamontagne already in his corner.

Right now, I'd wager NH looks something like...

Romney - 33%
Daniels - 22%
Gingrich - 12%
Paul - 10%
Pawlenty - 6%
Santorum - 3%
Barbour - 3%
Roemer - 1%

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast

---

by: andyroo312 @ Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 17:51:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But that was true in '96 and PAT BUCHANAN still won!......

Clinton was the incumbent running for reelection, the only action was on Team Red, indies then like now were allowed to vote in either primary, and yet Buchanan won.

So letting indies in doesn't change the scenario much if at all.

More realistically, the indie pool probably doesn't fluctuate much with competitiveness.  is the same no matter what.  Swing voters don't vote in primaries, they don't have an attachment to a party to cause them to want to do that.  Indies who would vote in a Dem primary would not vote in a GOP primary, and vice-versa.  So you're left with the same people whether there's a competitive primary on the other side or not.

I just did some quick research, and the NH GOP Prez primary had 210K voters in 1996, 221K in 2000, and 241K in 2008.  This in an era of hyperincreasing voter interest in elections generally.  This is an increase of 5% in 2000 over '96, and a 9% increase in '08 over 2000.  In comparison, the general election saw a 14% increase (499K to 569K) in 2000 over '96, and a whopping 25% increase (569K to 711K) in '08 over 2000.  So having the game to themselves, in '96, didn't really matter much.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:24:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

If anything, it plays into the idea that "Independents aren't really independent"

I think a lot of people waste way too much time worrying about what "independents" do when the vast majority of them are partisans who like to pretend they aren't.

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

---

by: DGM @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:37:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yup, and Karl Rove(!) was right in basing his strategy for Bush on that reality......

Rove was the first to strategize on that assumption so explicitly, and he was right.

I try hard when I think about voting behavior to think about people I know who aren't political junkies.  And the primary voter is a special animal indeed, a partisan for sure.

If you're voting in the NH GOP Prez primary next year, it's because you want a Republican to be elected President, and it's highly likely you want a Republican to win most or all of the time.  If you're a swing voter, either someone truly a split bag on ideology and issues, or someone who is disengaged from politics except for voting and thinking about that decision in very broad and impressionistic terms, then either way you're just not a primary voter.

The reality next year is that the Dem primary will see rock-bottom turnout, and the GOP primary will see only a modest uptick.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:48:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, it depends...

2010 was a "midterm" year, when usually most of the voters in primaties are "base", which is, naturally, an extremely conservative in Republican party, just as it's an extremely liberal in Democratic. "No center needs to apply". In 2012 that may be different. But only "may be": my guess is that as long as (black) Obama stays President - that alone will be a great reason for far-right to turn-out in very big numbers in Republican primaries..

---

by: smoltchanov @ Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 07:09:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

if i recall correctly

California republicans have a system where yu get 3 delegates for wining each district with some (or one) getting extra delegates, such as winning nancy pelosi's district.

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.

---

by: doug_tuttle @ Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 02:51:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

wow that had typos.

sorry.

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.

---

by: doug_tuttle @ Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 03:36:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

yeah California is district-take-all

so in a close election, you'd expect the candidates to more or less split the delegates.  But McCain beat Romney 42% to 35%.  That was significant enough to result in 158 delegates for McCain, and only 12 for Romney.  The whole state might as well have been winner-take-all.

It's also interesting to compare their home states of Arizona and Massachusetts.  For some reason, both states actually saw closer than expected results (Romney won MA by 10%, McCain won AZ by 12%).  Yet AZ was winner-take-all (50 delegates for McCain) and MA was proportional (22 for Romney, 18 for McCain).

The GOP primaries are pure insanity.

---

by: skaje @ Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 03:37:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

kind of weird

how they keep including robitaille when he's like the one person who's not running for sure, but ok,..

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/

---

by: sapelcovits @ Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 04:23:46 AM UTC