FHQ has been saying since our Very Rough Estimate of the delegate counts a couple of weeks ago that Romney is the only candidate who has a chance to get there. But, of course, I have not yet shown my work. No, it isn't mathematically impossible, but it would take either Gingrich or Santorum over-performing their established level of support in the contests already in the history books to such an extent that it is all but mathematically impossible.Now, I think it's all over and Santorum won't get to 1144, and I've never thought it was at all plausible for Newt to get there, but I think Josh is overstating his case here.
First problem I have with it. Josh takes a hard line on unbound caucus delegates, and while I don't quite agree, I understand his point. Certainly, projecting out the straw poll vote into a firm delegate count is wrong. However, in his count today Josh treats those delegates as if they don't exist, and that, I think, is almost equally wrong. Surely, to take the Santorum case, he's going to win some delegates from Colorado, Minnesota, and Iowa. Perhaps not as many as his share of the straw poll would suggest, but some, no? Indeed, and I think Josh himself has said this in the past, if Santorum was otherwise dominating the race then he'd probably win the bulk of those delegates. Sure, they would (in many states) be perfectly free to announce support for one candidate and then flip at the convention. But again, some of the delegates selected through caucuses are going to be just as dedicated to their candidate as those chosen in primaries.
The second problem I have is that I think that Josh (and here he has lots of company I think) is still underestimating how many delegates a certain nominee can get during the back part of a cycle. I still think it's fairly likely that we'll winnow down to a nominee plus Ron Paul by the end of March, perhaps even earlier. And at that point, the nominee gets almost all the delegates, including all the non-Paul caucus delegates.
In other words, given how few delegates have been hard-allocated so far -- just about 200, by Josh's count -- I don't think we can talk about maximum delegate counts, at least not based on delegate math. Santorum's problem is that the party doesn't seem to want him, not that the delegate math works against him. At least, not so far.
I also say:
ReplyDelete"Surely the automatic delegates or the unbound caucus delegates would keep Santorum over 1144. Yeah, they could potentially serve as kingmaker until you remember that we just very unrealistically gave Santorum winner-take-all allocation where is was conditionally possible. We gave him a consistent 50% of the vote -- over 15% better than he has performed during his best stretch. Also, Santorum -- given the polls we have access to for today's races -- is very unlikely to reach that level of support across all of the Super Tuesday primaries and caucuses. That means that after today -- a day with over 400 delegates at stake -- Santorum will not be able to get to 1144."
In other words, gains in automatic delegates or unbound delegates would likely not be enough to offset the all but certain "loss" of delegates for not winning all the congressional districts in states that are winner-take-all by CD.
--
But I agree with your larger point that it probably has less to do with math than the fact that unbounds or automatics have not and likely will not line up behind Santorum (or Gingrich) in any significant numbers.
...because the support just isn't there.
--
FYI: You didn't link to this post in your Read Stuff post this morning. You grabbed the link to my Keys to Super Tuesday post yesterday.
Ooh, that I did. That was a good post.
DeleteAs far as the substance: I mean, we're both basically at the same overall conclusion here, but I really don't think that the way to get there is by delegate math.
Of course. As you have pointed out a bunch of times, Santorum's trifecta at the beginning of February helped perception-wise, but did nothing for him withint the party. No automatic delegates suddenly came to his aid. That spoke volumes.
DeleteBut I have no problem showing that on top of that, the writing is on the wall mathematically in the delegate count.
--
Oh and thanks by the way. I appreciate the kind words.
Plus, just let me do my busy work. It keeps me out of trouble.
"Santorum's problem is that the party doesn't seem to want him, not that the delegate math works against him."
ReplyDeleteThat plus his inept campaign or lack thereof failed to get on the ballot in Virginia and didn't submit full slates of delegates in every district in Ohio and other states. It's hard to make a case for an underdog candidate succeeding at a long delegate accumulation process when he keeps kicking own goals with regards to delegates.
I don't think that's a "plus," I think it's a symptom of his lack of support w/in the party. If Santorum had more support among party actors, he'd have a larger pool of campaign operatives to draw from, and hence a more effective campaign.
DeleteOh, great. I was going to get a whole post saying that, but now S. Tarzan came and nailed it.
DeleteI'd quibble. If I'm a party actor, I want to see what kind of organization a candidate can begin to put together before jumping in the pool with them, including giving my blessings to my consultant friend to work with them.
DeleteThat said, I don't recall ANY stories noting major hires for Santorum after others dropped out. However, that could be an interesting quirk of this cycle. The only person to drop out who had a decent organization to pick clean was Perry (I'm think Pawlenty just never had them, or they were hired up by Romney back in the late summer and I've forgotten those stories). Gingrich's can't jump ship, because they already jumped to Perry. What's left (besides Perry's) are all personally linked to their candidates.
However, it is notable that I don't recall seeing a single story about whither Perry's staff. Maybe that's a dog-not-barking; those Perry flacks are taking a vacation until Romney sews it up.
Santorum is not thinking clearly. If he won, it would increase the chances of the Republicans coming out second best in November. Sometimes, big egos are a good thing. ;)
ReplyDeletePuerto Rico Mar 18 - 23
ReplyDeleteWisconson Apr 3 - 42
Maryland Apr 3 - 37
D.C. Apr 3 - 19
Delaware Apr 24 - 17
California Jun 5 - 172 !!!
New jersey Jun 5 - 50
Utah June 26 - 40
All of those are winner take all. I could see Santorum competetive in only 2 ( Wis/NJ ) that would be 398 in Romney's column.
NY turns into winner-take-all if someone takes 50% - uhm yep. So 95 more for 493.
Add that to the current 404 and Romney is pretty much locked in at 897.
Meaning all he needs is 247 out of all the proportionals.
Giving him 28% of those and he gets 288.4 ... that means he has won the nomination with 11 to spare.
Someone will be doing this math about the end of the month and basically say on Apr 3 if Santorum can't get Wisconson, he needs to drop out. After NY on Apr 24 if Romney DOES hit the winner take all. They WILL be told to drop out.
Pretty ugly win. But it is a win.