MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 11 months 4 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 3 months ago
RNC: How Delegates will be Allocated
By Elusive Trope on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 2:36pm |Frontloading HQ has an interpretation - Mitt still in charge. Surprise, surprise. This is in large part due to a number of the Super Tuesday contest have a Winner-Take-All allocation if the winner gets over 50%, which Mitt will achieve if the Bachmanns and Santorums drop out. But even if it is just Mitt vs. Ron vs. Newt, the likelihood of any of these three getting 50% is very low - in my humble of projection opinion.
URL:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/docs/2012%20RNC%20Delegate%20Summary.pdf
- Add new comment
- 1260 reads
Comments
This applies to 5 state races (OK,OH,TN,VT,VA). You don't think any candidate will top 50% (66% in TN) in any of the 'em?
by Lazy KGB (not verified) on Tue, 12/27/2011 - 3:06am
Now that Newt has failed to register for Virginia, the chances of one of Mitt or Ron topping 50% here if it gets down to that particular 3-way race would actually be rather high!
by Verified Atheist on Tue, 12/27/2011 - 6:48am
It is possible, if Newt doesn't find a loophole so he can vote for himself in this primary season (i.e. gets on the VA ballot), that it could be a major blow to Mitt campaign. This could happen if Bachmann, Santorum, Huntsman, or Perry haven't dropped out by Super Tuesday and end up taking most of the votes that would have gone to Newt. This would be an clear indication there is a very strong anti-Mitt sentiment in the ranks, so strong that they would rather vote for someone who has no real chance of winning than vote for Mitt. In other words, if Mitt wants to show he is a "winner," he has to top VA with more than 50% of the vote. It will be difficult for the Mitt campaign to create any positive spin (although like all campaigns they'll give it the old college try) if Paul, Bachmann, Santorum and Perry get around 10% and 20%, leaving Mitt with something like 30%.
by Elusive Trope on Tue, 12/27/2011 - 10:01am
Yeah, there's a reason I put my conditional "if" there. I definitely agree that things could get interesting and I don't expect that particular 3-way race to be in play by the time I have an opportunity to vote in the Virginia GOP primary.
by Verified Atheist on Tue, 12/27/2011 - 10:07am
My gut feeling is that Santorum will see Newt's absence as an opening for him to make a name for himself with a strong third or even second place showing along with Paul. Just acting as a spoiler to Mitt's victory will garner him some headline space. Aside from eyeing 2016, Santorum also has a bit of Palin syndrome in my opinion - i.e. want to use the race as a springboard to become a pundit on the conservative circuit. So you might have a different three way race in VA that is in some ways more intriguing than the national one between Ron, Mitt and Newt.
by Elusive Trope on Tue, 12/27/2011 - 10:22am
I really don't get your logic. In a situation such as you are describing, all of the dynamics favor Romney when it comes to delegate math (bear in mind, as the establishment choice, it can be assumed he'll pick up the majority of built-in buffer delegates) ... having his theoretical top rival drop a good 15 delegates is simply an added boon. The "spin" you propose is the same spin we've been hearing since this time last year ... I don't see how it impacts Romney at all. Likewise with Paul, really. The narrative lines that have been deployed to undermine any credibility of their performances is so long-established they certainly don't seem well positioned to be rolled out as an epiphany at this point.
The spin risk mostly sits with Newt. While the pundocracy is increasingly useless when it comes to understanding voter behavior, the widely adopted narrative spin plays an all-important role when it comes to enticing the mega-donors which feed campaigns such as Gingrich's to get off their pocketbooks. He *really* needs to kick-start fundraising or I don't give a fuck what anyone says, he simply can't compete. Not with how he does business. At the moment, he's going on poll-juice and a prayer - and hoping everyone doesn't notice that his "Newtmentum" which was supposed to engulf Iowa has turned into a "I'm just hoping for 4th and then a stage comeback in SC".
He must survive a bit of a gauntlet before we get to Super Tuesday ... both Paul and Romney are flush and will make Florida a *very* expensive battle. Gingrich will have a month to pump whatever's left into the Super Tuesday states; but there are also a low-intensity series of intervening contests touching Western states which could potentially be definitive in the general election where a failure to compete puts one at a disadvantage in the "can he beat Obama" sweepstakes.
Santorum (IMO) has been undersold in such a way that he could hang in there for a bit with modest performance in the opening rounds (he's announced if he comes in dead-last in Iowa he'll drop out ... which I see as sort of a challenge to others at the back of the pack to agree to start winnowing the field a bit). If Santorum moves up to finish within points of Newt at slots 3 and 4 in Iowa, Newt is going to have to deal with that in addition to playing a money and delegate math game that are both already stacked against him. The Evangelical activists have not been shy about suggesting Bachmann merge her campaign with Santorum's. If both she and Perry were to move their support behind him as the official 20-percenter candidate, Santorum has the potential to move into a position within the race that you see as guaranteed for Newt. In many ways he's a far better fit for the role, especially with evangelicals.
by Lazy KGB (not verified) on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:12am
A lot depends on how many of the other candidates drop out by then. Santorum and Huntsman I think are setting their eyes on 2016, so they'll be there to develop the name recognition. Perry might bend to the GOP Establishment pressure to drop out, and Bachmann will probably drop out as her fundraising dries up. If this is the case, Huntsman and Santorum will probably scape out 8% to 10% of the vote.
The interesting trend right now is the rise of Paul in NH. I think it is significant that he has become competitive in Iowa and now is showing support in NH beyond his usual fanatic base. It is possible as people get closer to the election in the various states, their desire for something other than Mitt leads them to going against their initial feeling about Paul. So in places like OK, TN, and OH, Paul could see come Super Tuesday 25% to 30% support. Newt is very likely to get 35% to 40% when all is said and done. This leaves about 30% for Mitt (with the second tier getting 10%). No clear winner, and no one over 50%.
Ohio is especially interesting because of its manufacturing - blue collar culture. I just don't see Mitt resonating on any significant level with these folks. If Newt has a number of successes, including South Carolina and Florida, it could be very brutual for Mitt. If the polls show that, then people are going to feel more comfortable giving their vote to a candidate other than Mitt without thinking they are throwing it away.
by Elusive Trope on Tue, 12/27/2011 - 10:11am
Something about how you are approaching this makes zero sense to me. Super Tuesday isn't actually an event in and of itself. As such, it isn't really valid to assign result percentages to "Super Tuesday" and have there be any particular meaning to the numbers. As far as that goes, aggregate delegate totals will still determine relative standing at the end of the day.
The winner-takes-all-over-50% dynamic is only relevant at the state and district levels. In the states where it's an issue, generally the AL delegates are allocated based on statewide results and the CD delegates are allocated based on performance *within the district*. Which means a candidate could potentially earn 100% of any one district's delegates while still scoring zero AL delegates or not getting enough total votes to trigger winner-takes-all for the state-level AL delegates. The math is not quite as simply cut/dry as you appear to be characterizing it.
FWIW ... RCP sees Romney as moving into a point of advantage in OH. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/12/23/romney_gaining_supe...
by Lazy KGB (not verified) on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:26am
I haven't had the time to look through the various state rules (such as PA having a beauty contest primary, but the convention can allocate the 72 delegates however it sees fit - since this happens in June, and a number of candidates will have surely dropped out, it could be quite the squabble between Newt's forces and Mitt's forces), but Ohio's is not quite winner take all at 50%
The winner-takes-all upon reaching 50% only applies to those 15 at-large delegates.
So Mitt could get 55% of the vote, but if this is primarily gained in a few specific districts, He may just get the 15, plus say 21 of the district delegates. Newt could still get 45 district delegates by winning close races in the more rural districts. Ron gets one district and take 3 delegates with him to the National Convention.
This all reminds me of the brew-ha-ha over the Super Delegates in 2008 Democratic primary, and how people were outrages their voices were going to be possibly over-turned by the establishment insiders. The same thing goes here with the "tea party" and populist factions of the GOP base, as the unbound or "morally" bound delegates start to choose sides at the various county and statewide conventions.
(as a side note - Ohio has 3 unbound delegates to go along with the 48 allocated delegates, but according to the official RNC rules, these delegates are only "morally" bound to vote according to the results, as opposed to being fully bound to vote according to the wishes of the people.)
by Elusive Trope on Tue, 12/27/2011 - 11:47am
Oh hell. If the GOP can limit their shenanigans to just the unbound delegates, the "tea party" is going to be ecstatic.
Last time, party leaders simply adjourned state conventions before votes were tallied if it looked like the Tea Party had managed to vote on their slate of earned bound delegates (well, that was NV; some other tactics were employed elsewhere). Ultimately, every single GOP delegate in America was assigned based completely on party insider whim.
It's been tearing at the party core ever since. That's one of the most under-appreciated dynamics that has been driving internal GOP decisions since 2008. So far, it is not exactly clear that the establishment has been able to patch up the rift. How they handle the convention this cycle is going to be one of the more significant decisions to be made in American politics this decade.
(note: noted that your comment here moots a bit of my own reply to your previous comment upthread.)
by Lazy KGB (not verified) on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:47am
I guess it might appear that I am advocating the notion Newt is going to win the nomination or some sort of thing. In the back of my head, the delegate allocation, while eventually favoring Mitt, could lead to a messy brokered convention. If Santorum gets a surprise boost from Iowa (the Huck Army has just endorsed him), he could run all the way to the convention with few delegates gathered here and there, along with Newt and Paul.
In recent memory the Republican faithful have generally been of the mindset to fall behind the chosen one as quickly as possible. I think that is what is different this campaign cycle. The emergence of the tea party had an impact even on GOP people who don't identify with it. The GOP Establishment has become less of an influence and in some cases seen as part of the problem. The protest vote could be quite significant in places like Florida and SC - lessening the need for the candidates to have spend their money.
In fact, for Mitt their money is going to be probably better spent on getting people motivated to come out to vote, rather than attacking Newt or Paul which only raises their name recognition.
by Elusive Trope on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 8:57am
For the most part Romney is doing exactly what you propose with Ron Paul. But with Gingrich everyone already knows his name, it's not possible to increase that much; so it's all about driving down the positives and increasing the negatives. And that's a game that pits media money against media money. Especially knowing Gingrich's love affair with money and access, the best move is to bleed him out.
Neither Gingrich nor Santorum are likely to force a brokered convention. There is not much upside for them - and a whole lot of getting treated like Ron Paul going forward into the future if they force that route and don't come out on top. If it gets to the point where Paul's performance exceeds expectations and makes the kabuki unsustainable any longer while holding on to their delegates, they'll back-room power deal and throw in with Romney long before June if the numbers and money are rolling his direction. Especially Santorum - he's trying to prove his mettle, not nuke the party. In fact, I can envision Santorum endorsing Romney and pledging his delegates being the in Newt's proverbial coffin (if Santorum gets decent numbers).
by kgb999 on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 2:00pm
A reasonable analysis, except that I think it's not unlikely that Gingrich sees this as his last shot. In 2016 he'll be 73 — older than McCain was in 2008.
by Verified Atheist on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 2:04pm
I think the other facet not discussed too much among the pundits is the local party machines - the tiny part headquarters in the towns across the country. My sense, not really based on specific data, is that the angry tea party sentiment, which can be seen on the other side through the Occupy movement, is more prevalent within the base of the GOP. The Democratic machines on the local level are still pretty much loyal to Obama and Establishment. If there is a more tea partyish contigency within the local power structure, and there is a low turn out (a possibility given the large numbers of still "undecideds" at this point), these people will have a lot of influence in the outcomes. The push by the Establishment for Romney not only has little impact here, but also could create even more passion to get out the protest vote. The blunder over the payroll tax bill, the slight improvement trend in consumer confidence, and Obama's rising numbers can also start to create the feeling that belief Obama is going to win, so one might as well vote one's conscience.
by Elusive Trope on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 9:09am
Our local party operations are a total mess. It's pretty much war. Same in Nevada. Although it's settling down now in NV a bit with the way 2010 Senate race shook out - they got their revenge against Lowden (who is the one who adjourned the 2008 convention with ballots uncounted) and were magically saved from themselves by Reid ... WIN.
by kgb999 on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 2:23pm