Romney’s Two Paths to Victory in Alabama and Mississippi
Mitt Romney has two chances to win on Tuesday when Alabama and Mississippi hold their Republican primaries. He could win one or both of the primaries, or Newt Gingrich could win one or both of the primaries. In fact, it may well be the case that the best-scenario for Romney would be for Gingrich to win one state and Romney to win the other.
If Romney wins one or both of the contests, it will kill the notion that he can not win in the Deep South among conservative Republicans. These are states where, in presidential elections, black voters cast 90% or more of their votes for Democrats, and white voters cast 85-90% of their votes for Republicans. After his victories in the Tennessee and Oklahoma primaries last week, the conventional wisdom was that Rick Santorum had emerged as the principal conservative challenger to Mitt Romney, especially after Newt Gingrich did poorly in all the Super Tuesday contests other than in his home state of Georgia.
But the few polls in both Alabama and Mississippi now show very close fights — a near three-way tie for the lead in Alabama, and Romney and Gingrich both a few points ahead of Santorum in Mississippi. The closeness of the races in both states suggests that any of the three contenders could win one or more of the primaries. The real risk is to Santorum. If Santorum wins one of the primaries (more likely Alabama), then that will mean that Romney or Gingrich wins the other. This would be a less than satisfactory result for Santorum, who needs a sweep of the two states to maintain his momentum and to consolidate his position as the conservatives’ favored “non-Romney” in the race.
If Santorum loses both contests, which is certainly now possible, that means three possible scenarios, all of them unappetizing for Santorum. Mitt Romney could win both contests, which would mean that in states where Santorum should do best — states with a very high percentage of evangelical Christians and strong conservatives — he was beaten by a Massachusetts moderate who also happens to be Mormon — not exactly the flavors of the month in the Deep South.
On the other hand, Newt Gingrich could win both, which would mean that for the third time in this election cycle, Newt would have risen from the dead (or the written-off category) to move back into contention. Rick Santorum has been pressing Gingrich to leave the race, to enable Santorum to consolidate the conservative vote against Romney. Even one Gingrich victory on Tuesday will likely mean that Gingrich will be in the race for quite some time .
The third scenario — one victory for Romney and one for Gingrich — might be the worst for Santorum, especially if he finished third in each state. Then Gingrich sticks around, and Romney beats Santorum in the South, demonstrating that he is a national candidate with a big lead in pledged delegates.
The Alabama contest certainty fits the moniker “too close to call.” In the three polls taken in the state in the last week, Gingrich leads by one point in two surveys and Romney leads by one point in the third. In the two most recent surveys, both taken after Super Tuesday, Gingrich averages 30%, Romney 29.5%, and Santorum 29%.
Mississippi is a bit different, as two recent surveys show somewhat divergent results. The most recent survey by PPP, taken Saturday and Sunday, has Gingrich by two points over Romney and by six over Santorum. A Rasmussen survey taken last Thursday has Romney with an eight-point lead over both Gingrich and Santorum. The PPP surveys, the latest to be released, show Romney gaining slightly in Alabama, and Gingrich gaining in Mississippi.
Gingrich has planted himself in the two states since Super Tuesday, which in the end may prove decisive. Nate Silver, the New York Times’ statistical wizard, has been splitting his time between the presidential race and the NCAA tournament this week. His models for the two states give a very slight edge to Gingrich in Alabama (0.9%) over Romney, with Gingrich having a 48% chance of victory, Romney, 39%, and Santorum 13%.
In Mississippi, the order is reversed – Romney is projected to finish ahead by 0.5%, and has a 53% chance of winning, Gingrich 45%, and Santorum 2%. With so few surveys to evaluate, and the closeness of the poll results among the three candidates, my own sense is that Santorum’s chance may be a bit better than Silver has calculated.
Silver has noted that the most recent surveys in the GOP race this year have proven to be much closer to the final results than surveys taken earlier. With all of the candidates making last-minute pitches in person and in paid advertising, it is possible that Gingrich’s regional familiarity in Alabama and Mississippi may trump Santorum’s more forceful social conservative messaging. In the last few days, Gingrich has been a bit less harsh about Mitt Romney, while Santorum has kept up the volume of his attacks. With most GOP voters believing Romney will be the eventual nominee, and two new polls showing Romney running ahead of Barack Obama, some voters in the two states may simply be signaling that they want to end the GOP fratricide and move on to taking on Obama.
If Romney wins one state and Gingrich the other tomorrow, there will be no quick exits by any candidates. With both Gingrich and Santorum in the race, and Gingrich again on the upswing, Romney will likely continue to win many of the future races with less than 50% of the total vote, as has occurred in many of the states that have already held their primaries. Santorum has clearly connected with a sector of the GOP electorate. But to a larger number of GOP voters, he comes off as a scold, and his presence in the race makes it more likely that issues such as contraception are part of the ongoing debate . The new ABC/Washington Post poll indicates the recent falloff in support for Barack Obama has been, in large part, connected to the rapid rise in gasoline prices.
The GOP will win on pocketbook issues this year, or not at all.
See also: Could the South be Newt’s Waterloo?
Good analysis up to the penultimate paragraph. The difference between a Romney-Romney night and a Gingrich-Romney night in the deep South isn’t enough to have any particular effect on the race. The real effect of either result would be to doom Santorum, who will have lost his claim to be the only alternative to Romney. Romney’s math gets easier from here.
The result that could extend the race would be Santorum-Santorum or Santorum-Gingrich. Romney would still have a strong edge in the delegate math, but it would be another blow to his inevitability, inviting new doubts and speculation which don’t help him.
The only claim Ricky from PA has is being the least popular even among the fire-breathing socons. Otherwise, the faithful would not have gone through Bachmann and Perry and Noot, and been teased by Palin or Daniels or even Christie (who is much like Romney except for being a Catholic). The truth is, Ricky only surfaced after ALL of the other right-wingers either crashed and burned or opted against running. No one supported him; now, he’s what the moralists in the party are stuck with. Serves them right.
Damn! You had a nice thread of logic going there for a while, but it quickly degenerated into intense study of the effects of several photolytic enzymes on heat initiated binding of chunk meat. All the proteolysis enzymes tasted a bit off as decreases in binding scores followed overall collapse, friction, elastic crow teases, dad-pain, tripping (My mom used to say that a trip was a fall and don’t talk about babies at all – I’m sure it was the power pop group from the seventies that used to froth a lot) and cryin shames. The involvement of stream proteins in binding was suggested. The rabbit’s name was not indicated.
Alex, All too true. The vogue among many Republicans for Santorum can only be explained by a dangerous deterioration in our collective ability to think. I tried to write about it here: http://clarespark.com/2012/03/13/dumbing-down-when-did-it-begin/.
Or perhaps by a recognition, based on REALITY, that Mitt Romney is the worst candidate that the RINOs have ever foisted on us.
I can understand why the Mormons are going for Romney – that’s self explanatory.
But why anyone who calls himself a conservative would support a homosexual activist who governed to the left of Ted Kennedy is a mystery.
I wonder if Mittens still likes grits? Well, at least Matt Drudge, the gay Republican blogger, has stopped fellating Romney on his website with his prediction of a win. Maybe Belladonna Rogers can do the same.
Mitt Romney is NOT inevitable. Another brutal Romney gaffe from earlier today, calling these primaries “the desperate end” of Santorum’s campaign. So Mitt lost to a desperate loser. Get used to it …
Romney came is third in both Alabama and Mississippi. He in no way, shape, or form, is inevitable.
“Then Gingrich sticks around, and Romney beats Santorum in the South, demonstrating that he is a national candidate with a big lead in pledged delegates.”
Long as he doesn’t get past 50%, I don’t care.
To be sure, I refer to Mittens. If Newt somehow got past 50%, that’s be an unambiguously good thing.
I’m just sick of all of them. I don’t want to hear another snipey little word from them..or hear they put their feet in their mouth..JHC it has to end..these guys are the BS that comedy routines are made of.
I also HATE when one answers a question about another’s remarks and puts on their nasty sndiey smiles..as they reply. Sick of them!!!!
Unless there is freakin miracle, Mitt will be the nominee.
All we can hope for is that he choses a black or latino for VP..seriously! In our state..it is a foregone conclusion that Mitt wins it. He doesn’t even need to come here to campaign..
Let me get this straight – Romney needs to do well to get back his “inevitability?”
Why doesn’t he just talk like a conservative, rather than with a Southern accent?
I guess only the “inevitable” have the need to pollute elections with incessant negative advertising (…and then lament before the cameras how negative the campaign has become…)
SEE
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/super-pacs-gop-primaries/2012/03/12/id/432272
Why doesn’t he just talk like a conservative, rather than with a Southern accent?
Two possible reasons:
Mitt’s a business man. He knows that you go with your strengths and he can talk with a Southern accent.
- OR -
Mitt knows that he doesn’t have to compete for your vote. You’ll vote for him just because somebody defaced the ballot and stuck an (R) after his name. If the rallying cry is “ABO” then Romney thinks he wins by getting former Obama voters to switch to him, so he campaigns to win their votes with left-of-center positions. And if he wants to be re-elected then he’ll govern to keep their votes. Your vote, my vote, all Conservatives’ votes have been devalued by years of the “lesser of two evils” mantra. We’ve accepted something bad because of fear of something worse, and in doing so have given up any chance at something good. It really was a clever strategy by a left-of-center party that pretended to be right-of-center.
“With the conservative vote still split, Romney has an opportunity to break through in the Deep South.”
I’m glad to see someone acknowledge that Romney is not a Conservative. How did such a ludicrous notion ever get started?
How did it get started?
I think Mitt “I’m severly conservative” Romney was holding a conference at
The Mitt “I’m not worried about the very poor” Romney Club with
The Mitt “I’ve got friends who own Nascar teams” Romney Media covering it and
Mitt “I’m proud of RomneyCare but ObamaCare’s a whole ‘nother thing” Romney Pundits blogging it.
Anyone who thinks Mitt is not a conservative is highly mistaken… His past makes him MUCH MUCH more conservative than any other candidate.
Like he says He has worked in the private sector as CEO and if you are not conservative and balance your budget you go out of business.
Rick nor Newt have any private sector experience,and with their record that makes MITT much more conservative
Oh Steve, Steve, Steve…
Running a business does NOT make one a “CONSERVATIVE”…even if one keeps an eye on the bottom line.
Mittens himself has said things on both sides of the matter – as he has with almost ALL MATTERS OF ANY IMPORTANCE WHATSOEVER.
He LIES. “Severely conservative” AND “Progressive”?!? Only Mittens and brain dead supporters think that makes any sense. I’ve had enough of so-called Republican FRAUDS.
Sounds by your logic that Warren Buffet is a conservative. We ALL know that ain’t true. When it comes to judging Romney, you need to look at how he has governed. Has he governed as a conservative? Not really. What conservative would ever push through state health care? Even though we’re talking about Massachusetts, why would a conservative governor ever think about pushing it through let alone signing it? Because he believes in state run health care. Whether it’s on a state or federal level doesn’t matter, it’s still government poking their little fingers where they don’t belong. The man still can’t say that it was a mistake. He won’t acknowledge that in order to fund it, they had to involve federal money, and it’s still WAY over budget. So, all of us in other states are now funding the health care of Mass citizens and most likely illegal immigrants as well. Not something a conservative would approve of.
GAO Finds More Than $400 Billion Spent Each Year On 1,500 Duplicative, Fragmented, Inefficient Programs
http://budget.senate.gov/republican/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=5b942c34-d1e5-49de-be92-a85dad8aa191&SK=42ED5BBA6767481D74B2057AC359ACD4
A few years back, a hive of hornets decided to make its nest on top of a second-story swamp cooler outside my cousin’s Boston-area home. My cousin made an ill-fated attempt to remove the hornets, which resulted in a two-story fall and a broken arm.
“This looks like a job for your home teacher,” said my cousin’s home teacher.
The home teacher brought over his own ladder and clothed himself in homemade beekeeping gear. He then made his way to the hornet’s nest and gathered the whole thing up in a garbage bag, avoiding any stings or the more severe injuries that had beset my cousin. He did this with no public fanfare, no accolades, and no thought of collecting payment for his efforts.
And who was this noble home teacher? A man by the name of Mitt Romney.
Now, unless you’re familiar with Mormon lingo, you probably got lost when I introduced the phrase “home teacher,” or you may have conjured up images of some kind of private educational tutor who was taking care of my cousin’s kids. That would have left you wondering why a tutor thought it was their responsibility to wrangle hornets.
But if you’re a Mormon, the phrase made perfect sense, as did the rest of the story. You would know that every month, every member of a Mormon congregation receives a visit from two “home teachers,” who share an inspirational message but, more importantly, are charged with the responsibility of looking out for the family’s welfare. So if a family is struggling, the home teachers are the spiritual “first responders,” and a good home teacher jumps at any opportunity to be of service.
Among other things, Mitt Romney is a good home teacher.
That post, sent to us by reader Kitty, goes on to explain what a Mormon “stake president” is and how Gov. Romney’s role as one is telling as to what kind of U.S. President he’d be.
For me, here’s the upshot: I don’t like Mormon theology, but I do like Mitt Romney’s values. The former would prevent me from voting for him as my pastor, but the latter is what matters when voting for my president.
Posted in Main, How Can I Vote for a Mormon?, Mormonism
Good to know that Mittens can do something besides run negative ads and play pander to an audience.
I’ll give him a call anytime I need someone to climb a ladder and clean up some bugs.
Unfortunately, right now I am looking for a President who will actively lead the struggle to roll back govt. intrusions.
Mittens is just another big govt, tax increasing, liberal judge appointing drone.
Mittens should stop his 6 year run for president and return to what he has proven himself good at doing — bug catcher
count Mark among the “hate the Mormon” bunch. Let’s see:
–Romney actually has created jobs, with his own money. Ricky from PA cannot say that.
–Noot was on the mandate bandwagon long before anyone had heard of Obama.
–Ricky supported EVERY govt-expanding excess of Bush from No Child to Medicare Part D to Homeland Security to multiple hikes in the debt ceiling.
–Noot was forced out as Speaker by his own party.
–Ricky lost re-election by teh largest margin defeat ever sustained by a Repub
–Romney cut some taxes in MA and raised some fees. So did Reagan.
Bigger question is who decided that two statists like Noot and Ricky are conservatives?
Ah!
The THEISM card!!!
Way to go Romneybots!
OOH! And…just WHO was it that bragged about GETTING ALL THAT FEDERAL STASH for the Olympics and for his Massachusetts RomneyCare?!?
Oh wait, that doesn’t fit your precious delusion…SORRY /s.
I’ll give him a call anytime I need someone to climb a ladder and clean up some bugs.
Isn’t that sort of what this election is all about…?
God bless you. A man who simply is looking for a Presidential candidate with the necessary qualities.
Pity the Zombie-like followers (so similar to Obama’s of 2008,) can’t deal with criticism (see Alex’s bizarre post).
I don’t think your story helps Mitt as much as it hurts him. The takeaway from the story is “Mitt is a problem solver!” but government is full of problem solvers. What it’s not full of are people who ask “Is this my problem to solve?”.
That’s Mitt’s problem and it was George W. Bush’s problem as well… they hear about a problem, generally from some whiny Liberal pony-tailed guy, and they jump in to solve it without asking “Is this truly a Federal (State) issue and does it fall under my Constitutional role as President (Governor)?”. Romney’s defense of RomneyCare is “the people wanted it, I solved their problem” but, again, was it his problem to solve? In solving it did he make the people better able to solve their own problems in the future, as one presumes a “home teacher” should, or did he just make the individuals involved more dependent on other people? If you’ve ever supervised people then you know you most often need to let your employees muddle through problems on their own even though it would be fair easier for you to step in and do the work yourself.
For all the talk about “true Conservatives” what we really need is someone who understands the proper role of government in a free society. It’s easy to pay people to not work but what Constitutional role should the Federal Government be paying people to not work? It’d be easy to nationalize health care, just look at all the paperwork that would disappear!, but is that a proper role for the Federal Government?. And no, I’m not talking about Ron Paul who seems fixated on the Federal Reserve.
For all the talk about “true Conservatives” what we really need is someone who understands the proper role of government in a free society.
You’re absolutely wrong. We don’t need “someone” who understands that. Someones, plural, are supposed to understand that. The American people are supposed to understand that. But they don’t, and as long as they don’t then expecting a single “someone” to change things is like expecting water to flow uphill.
Just curious, what would he have done for a stranger who was not a Morman?
Read Palin’s Brutal Takedown of Obama …
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150612033023435
“Yeow”, the pontificating repug protests, “Such is the miserable lot of my life, all pointed barbs aside.” Lear’s (the doomed king of his own misbegotten kingdom) confusion at attacks upon his throne and self seemed dearly unwarranted. “What have we done to deserve such miserable attacks upon my regal person?” And gathered about him were such a sorry lot of acrid and acerbic souls who had an astringent and attenuated existence that begged any excuse for being. As salt in a wound, as the tart taste of a pickled pigs foot, as nasty as an aside from someone held so dear, as painful as anything said by someone you’ve held dear – you are damned by the pain you are willing to accept.
There, are the machinations of your own misery. You stoke the furnace of your own smelter of torment. You live with the self-defined slag of the dregs of your own existence. People, even your own sycophants, are confused, asking what the story is, what you are, what’s going on. That implies a dotted expletive… The answer (as if there could be any definitive code of clarity in your murky puddle of social issues) is, metaphorically, perhaps power mad stumbling drunks with a sad agenda too often directed at a sad sequence of phrases that’s so clouded by your confused priorities or the fragmented family your “party” has become.
Yes, you speak weakly and befuddled of whatever it is that is your agenda. Or rather, you speak clumsily and inarticulately of what you feel, what exactly it is you’re trying to say. Yeow, you might say. Yikes and yehoody. There you are. Stunted and stupid, the proverbial ‘foot in mouth’ as you try to explain why your grand “party” ended up in political ditch on the side of the road, late in the night of your dead-end ambitions, with no flares, no cell-phone, no sense of where you are and what you should do. Life is a conditioned agreement between what is and what could be. And it’s passed you by.
The closeness of the races in both states suggests that any of the three contenders could win one or more of the primaries.
It’s a good idea to qualify exactly what it means to “win” one of these primaries.
To “win”, in this context, means to to get a plurality of the popular vote. But that has virtually no impact on the number of delegates won by the “winner”.
A candidate – Gingrich, for example – might “win” Mississippi in the sense of getting a higher overall raw vote total than any of his rivals, and still wind up with fewer delegates. Both Alabama and Mississippi award delegates on a proportional basis and not “winner takes all”. And it’s proportional on a per-congressional-district basis, not proportional on a state-wide basis.
Regards of who wins the mostly meaningless plurality-of-the-popular-vote contest, there’s a high degree of probability that the delegates will end up being distributed fairly equally between the major candidates. It is mathematically possible for one candidate to greatly outperform his raw vote performance though, winning most CD’s by a handful of votes while losing the remainder by a landslide.
Caught on Tape: Dead People and Clones Offered Ballots in Vermont Primary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLSjL–qvsw&feature=player_embedded
The fact that delegates are awarded proportionally is what has made it so difficult for Romney to clinch the nomination early. (Not the supposed “conservative revolt”)
But the same force which has helped the anti-Romney side so far is gong to hurt them going forward, because it also limits the ability of Santorum and/or Gingrich to make inroads into Romney’s commanding lead in delegates.
Santorum “won” the state of Oklahoma. But he gained only one more delegate there than Romney did: 14 to 13. He cannot afford many more such victories.
No sale, Steve. YOU of most folks here wear the Mittens Cheerleader outfit most proudly.
To rationalize why precious Mittens is NOT the “inevitable” Messiah you and your ilk have claimed for months appears more and more like a carney sideshow sales pitch.
“STEP RIGHT UP! He’s pro-life! He’s pro-choice! He’s the Amazing Romney!”
FAIL.
Phrases like “Mittens Cheerleaders” are a very poor substitute for rational thought.
If you have a rational thought in your head, feel free to share it with the world.
Specifically, you should lay out your rational thoughts about how, precisely, you think that Santorum can win the nomination. What results in what states wind up with Rick Santorum running against Obama next fall?
Or continue with your juvenile taunts. It’s up to you.
“If Romney wins one or both of the contests, it will kill the notion that he can not win in the Deep South among conservative Republicans.”
That sounds mighty fine…for the Primary. BUT…
…as you well point out in the following sentences, Dem-enslaved Blacks will be voting EN BLOC for Obama.
TRANSLATION: No Sale For Mittens against Barry.
I would have thought it was obvious that “conservative Republicans” and “Dem-enslaved Blacks” were two separate groups of people. Republicans don’t win in the South (or in the North or West for that matter) because they get black votes.
But I guess you were too busy saying things like “Mittens” (what are you, six years old?) to put any thought into your words.
That sounds mighty fine…for the Primary. BUT…
…as you well point out in the following sentences, Dem-enslaved Blacks will be voting EN BLOC for Obama.
TRANSLATION: No Sale For Mittens against Barry.
As you know Ed, Dem-enslaved blacks will vote for Obama regardless of who the GOP nominee is.
One very important thing to remember this November, On Obama’s inauguration day, Jan 20, 2009, the average price of a gallon of gasoline was $1.78.
How much are you paying now and how much will you be paying in four years if he’s reelected?
Who is most likely to take steps against the continued increase? Newt has promised to approve the Keystone pipeline the day he’s inaugurated. He has promised to fire every single czar. He has promised to abolish Obama’s presidential edicts, er, executive orders that bypass the constitution.
Yes, and with Newt, there is some reason to believe he’ll actually do what he says.
He’s a lot unlike Romney that way.
with Newt, there is some reason to believe he’ll actually do what he says.
Oh, goody!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154
You might want to pay a bit more attention to what he says.
Rick Santorum: “Vote for Ron Paul”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE-s_8PvT5Y