Before Louisiana
Romney 563
Santorum 263
Gingrich 135
Paul 60
There were 1273 delegates left in play. 1144 needed to win the nomination
Romney needed 581 of the remaining delegates to win the nomination...in other words, he needs to win 45.6% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination before the convention.
Santorum needed 881 delegates or 69.2% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination.
Gingrich needed 1009 or 79.2% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination.
Paul needed 1084 or 85.1% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination.
To force a brokered convention, Santorum, Gingrich and Paul needed to collectively win 693 or 54.4% of the remaining delegates.
After Louisiana*
*Assumes the final delegate count from Louisiana is Romney 9, Santorum 33 and 4 unallocated. Will be adjusted once the count is complete.
Romney 572
Santorum 296
Gingrich 135
Paul 50
There are 1231 delegates left in play. 1144 needed to win the nomination.
-Romney needs 572 delegates or 46.4% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination.
-Santorum needs 844 delegates or 71.8% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination.
-Gingrich needs 1009 delegates or 81.9% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination.
-Paul needs 1084 delegates or 88.0% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination.
-To force a brokered convention, Santorum, Gingrich and Paul need to collectively win 664 of the remaining delegates or 53.9% of the remaining delegates.
Analysis:
Santorum won Louisiana, but is actually farther from the nomination because the pie got smaller. But his campaign knows this; it is virtually impossible for him to catch Romney. If this were a basketball game, Santorum just went on a 33-9 run, but is still very far behind. If his goal is to get a brokered convention and hope that delegates changes their support, he did get closer, but did he get enough?
There are 14 states and DC that vote between now and the Texas primary. Out of those, only 5 are Santorum States. Only Pennsylvania (Santorum's home state), Nebraska, West Virginia, Kentucky and Arkansas could be considered Santorum states. If Romney only wins 50% of the delegates in the other states, he will be 411 delegates away from the nomination. In the states that Romney has won so far, he has claimed 439 out of 605 delegates or 72.5%. In the states that Romney has lost, he has still won 133 out of 405 or 32.5%. If this trend holds, assuming Santorum gets all of the delegates in Pennsylvania, this will be the delegate count going into Texas...
Romney 871
Santorum 545
Gingrich 135
Paul 50
After Texas with Romney getting only 32.5% of the delegates...
Romeny 921
Santorum 650
Gingrich 135
Paul 50
And then there is California Tuesday, where not only California votes, but also New Jersey, Montana, New Mexico and South Dakota. Assuming Romney only wins New Jersey and California... the count going into the final contest in Utah will be...
Romney 1099
Santorum 747
Gingrich 135
Paul 50
And finally, all of Utah's 40 delegates will go to Romney...
Romney 1139
Santorum 747
Gingrich 135
Paul 50
Romney would come up just 5 delegates short of having the nomination wrapped up before the convention. But Romney would likely win at least 5 of the 46 unallocated delegates so far and will likely win the nomination on the first convention ballot. That is not really a brokered convention at all, but a contentious one. But a contentious convention, where Romney and Santorum are spending money trying to persuade delegates to flip flop after the first ballot will take the focus off of defeating Obama until after the August convention. Surely, this plays out well for Obama not matter what the effects of high gas prices this summer. To avoid this, Romney needs to do better than gain 72.5% of the delegate vote in the Romney states and better than 32.5% in the non-Romney states. But in order for Santorum to get his wish of a brokered convention, where the delegates can vote for who the want to after the first ballot, he will have to do better than he is doing as well.
Romney has to win 75% of the delegates in the Romney states and better than 35% of the delegates in the non-Romney states. Where Santorum only needs to continue to do what he is doing, assuming his goal is to stop Romney.
If Santorum really wants the GOP to defeat Obama, it might be better to bow out gracefully after the next round of Primaries on April 3. History is not kind to the survivor of the most contentious nomination process when an incumbent is in office. It is important that this nomination process settle quickly.
Romney needed to win at least 14 delegates from Louisiana to avoid this.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Friday, March 23, 2012
Why the Etch-a-Sketch Analogy is Poor...But not The Most Costly Mistake
Most people have never piloted a ship at sea or an aircraft and do not have a frame of reference for what really happens in a campaign, even in a presidential campaign.
When driving a car, one simply points his vehicle in the direction he wants to go. For example, to drive my car from Salt Lake City to Omaha, I simply get on I-80 eastbound and it about 12 hours, I arrive in Omaha. Do I adjust for the weather conditions? If I am smart, I adjust my speed due to the weather conditions, but I don't change direction. I-80 eastbound is all I need to know.
But piloting an aircraft or a ship is a little different. One has to account for the speed and direction of the wind and/or water. Even a Ford Class Aircraft Carrier has to account for the speed and direction of the wind. If a jumbo jet does not account for wind speed, direction and other weather conditions, the aircraft may run out of fuel and never reach the intended destination. The safety of the passengers and crew depends on how well the pilot can adjust to changing weather conditions.
Running a campaign is more like piloting an aircraft than it is like driving a car. Many things can happen in the course of a campaign and if the candidate is unwilling to adjust, he cannot expect to win.
When the GOP nomination is secured, the eventual candidate will need to change course. The campaign will no longer be about attracting republican voters, it will be about three factors. 1. Ensuring that those who support your cause will actually make the effort and vote on election day. 2. Persuading the undecided voters to support you. 3. Weakening the support of the opponent.
The eventual GOP nominee will have to moderate somewhat, even Rick Santorum will have to moderate. If he does not, he can to expect win enough undecided voters to push him over the top. Generally, the GOP candidate has more work to do in this area because there are more Democrats than Republicans in the US. Nationally 29% of Americans are Republicans, 31% are Democrats and 38% are independent. If everyone votes and the independents are evenly spit, the Democrat will win 51% to 49%.
In the election of 2008, Barrack Obama won because he had solid support from the Democrats, he had the majority of independent voters and the Republican Support for John McCain was weakened. In 2000, George W. Bush won because he was able to get more of the independent vote than Al Gore, especially in some key states, like Florida. In the election of 2004, Bush won because of strong GOP support.
The primary season of 2012 has shown that Mitt Romney can win over independent voters. But Rick Santorum has shown that Romney will struggle with some factions of the Republican base. Mitt is strong with women, in urban areas, with Catholics and Traditional Protestants and with people who are not impressed with the way that President Obama has handled the economy. Mitt struggles with those in rural areas, who have a lower income, who consider themselves very conservative and those who consider themselves evangelical.
Because Governor Romney struggles with those who are part of the Republican base, he can not afford to moderate too greatly in the General Election, nor should he if he already has strong support in areas where traditional Rush Limbaugh-type Republicans will struggle. He does not need an Etch-a-Sketch after the primary campaign and GOP convention are over. He simply needs to adjust to the change in wind and weather.
Senator Santorum, on the other hand, will need change his campaign strategy if he wins the nomination, more so than Romney. He struggles with voters in the Obama demographic more than Romney does. He may continue so struggle after the primary season is over. He will need a greater correction due to wind and weather conditions than Romney will. He will have to prove, more than Romney does, that he can lead the country out of the recession better than Obama has. He mocks the Etch-a-Sketch, but he is the one who needs it.
The reason why the Etch-a-Sketch is a bad analogy is because it is an oversimplification of what most people can not relate to. When the wind and the weather change, a pilot does not press clear and recompute his course, even if a dramatic change is needed, a good pilot successfully. But the campaign will need to change direction after the nomination is secure, there is no doubt about that.
The other problem with this analogy is that an Etch-a-Sketch is a toy. It exacerbates the image that Romney will change what he says just to get votes. The good news for Romney's campaign is that it is not Romney who said it...it was one of his aids. There is no video tape anywhere of Romney himself using the Etch-a-Sketch analogy. It was a poor choice for an analogy, and the campaign staffer should publicly apologize.
But this gaffe will pass. Santorum will not get much use out of it after the memory of it fades. And if there is another face to face debate, it may get thrown back in Santorum's face. Romney could ask Santorum to elaborate on his plans to change his campaign once Romney is out of the way. GOP voters need assurance that Santorum has a bigger purpose than to defeat Romney. Therefore Santorum's statement that Obama is preferable to Romney is perhaps an even bigger gaffe and more costly mistake. It brings into doubt the reasons why Santorum is even in the race. Does he even care about winning the general election in November? Could Obama use Santorum's own words against him? And yes, there is video tape of Santorum saying it, not an aide. Isn't it Santorum who needs more damage control than Romney? We will find out on April 3.
When driving a car, one simply points his vehicle in the direction he wants to go. For example, to drive my car from Salt Lake City to Omaha, I simply get on I-80 eastbound and it about 12 hours, I arrive in Omaha. Do I adjust for the weather conditions? If I am smart, I adjust my speed due to the weather conditions, but I don't change direction. I-80 eastbound is all I need to know.
But piloting an aircraft or a ship is a little different. One has to account for the speed and direction of the wind and/or water. Even a Ford Class Aircraft Carrier has to account for the speed and direction of the wind. If a jumbo jet does not account for wind speed, direction and other weather conditions, the aircraft may run out of fuel and never reach the intended destination. The safety of the passengers and crew depends on how well the pilot can adjust to changing weather conditions.
Running a campaign is more like piloting an aircraft than it is like driving a car. Many things can happen in the course of a campaign and if the candidate is unwilling to adjust, he cannot expect to win.
When the GOP nomination is secured, the eventual candidate will need to change course. The campaign will no longer be about attracting republican voters, it will be about three factors. 1. Ensuring that those who support your cause will actually make the effort and vote on election day. 2. Persuading the undecided voters to support you. 3. Weakening the support of the opponent.
The eventual GOP nominee will have to moderate somewhat, even Rick Santorum will have to moderate. If he does not, he can to expect win enough undecided voters to push him over the top. Generally, the GOP candidate has more work to do in this area because there are more Democrats than Republicans in the US. Nationally 29% of Americans are Republicans, 31% are Democrats and 38% are independent. If everyone votes and the independents are evenly spit, the Democrat will win 51% to 49%.
In the election of 2008, Barrack Obama won because he had solid support from the Democrats, he had the majority of independent voters and the Republican Support for John McCain was weakened. In 2000, George W. Bush won because he was able to get more of the independent vote than Al Gore, especially in some key states, like Florida. In the election of 2004, Bush won because of strong GOP support.
The primary season of 2012 has shown that Mitt Romney can win over independent voters. But Rick Santorum has shown that Romney will struggle with some factions of the Republican base. Mitt is strong with women, in urban areas, with Catholics and Traditional Protestants and with people who are not impressed with the way that President Obama has handled the economy. Mitt struggles with those in rural areas, who have a lower income, who consider themselves very conservative and those who consider themselves evangelical.
Because Governor Romney struggles with those who are part of the Republican base, he can not afford to moderate too greatly in the General Election, nor should he if he already has strong support in areas where traditional Rush Limbaugh-type Republicans will struggle. He does not need an Etch-a-Sketch after the primary campaign and GOP convention are over. He simply needs to adjust to the change in wind and weather.
Senator Santorum, on the other hand, will need change his campaign strategy if he wins the nomination, more so than Romney. He struggles with voters in the Obama demographic more than Romney does. He may continue so struggle after the primary season is over. He will need a greater correction due to wind and weather conditions than Romney will. He will have to prove, more than Romney does, that he can lead the country out of the recession better than Obama has. He mocks the Etch-a-Sketch, but he is the one who needs it.
The reason why the Etch-a-Sketch is a bad analogy is because it is an oversimplification of what most people can not relate to. When the wind and the weather change, a pilot does not press clear and recompute his course, even if a dramatic change is needed, a good pilot successfully. But the campaign will need to change direction after the nomination is secure, there is no doubt about that.
The other problem with this analogy is that an Etch-a-Sketch is a toy. It exacerbates the image that Romney will change what he says just to get votes. The good news for Romney's campaign is that it is not Romney who said it...it was one of his aids. There is no video tape anywhere of Romney himself using the Etch-a-Sketch analogy. It was a poor choice for an analogy, and the campaign staffer should publicly apologize.
But this gaffe will pass. Santorum will not get much use out of it after the memory of it fades. And if there is another face to face debate, it may get thrown back in Santorum's face. Romney could ask Santorum to elaborate on his plans to change his campaign once Romney is out of the way. GOP voters need assurance that Santorum has a bigger purpose than to defeat Romney. Therefore Santorum's statement that Obama is preferable to Romney is perhaps an even bigger gaffe and more costly mistake. It brings into doubt the reasons why Santorum is even in the race. Does he even care about winning the general election in November? Could Obama use Santorum's own words against him? And yes, there is video tape of Santorum saying it, not an aide. Isn't it Santorum who needs more damage control than Romney? We will find out on April 3.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
When to Veto a Controversial Bill
Earlier tonight, Governor Gary Herbert decided to veto a controversial abstinence-only sex education bill. This bill would have require that high schools in the State of Utah, when they teach Sex Education, the only method of birth control that they may mention is abstinence.
The bill has stirred up a lot of controversy in the State of Utah. Many experts believe that abstinence-only Sex Education is not effective in preventing teenage pregnancy and out-of-wedlock child birth. I agree that it is not effective at all.
The problem is that we do a lousy job at teach kids how to avoid situations where "Mother Nature" is going to take control, even in church. But even that is not the most effective form of Sex Education.
I have read many studies since this bill was being debated. I have learned that the most effective method to prevent teen pregnancy has little to do with education at all. The most effective way to prevent teenage pregnancy is for parents to take the time to develop a good relationship with their children. This does two things. First, children will not seek for substitutes to their parents love. Second, children will trust their parent's opinions about many things including sex.
I know that things happen between kids when they allow themselves to be alone. Often, teens will find themselves sliding down that slippery slope to the procreative act before they realize what is happening and before they are prepared. At that point, any lecture about birth control isn't going to be remembered. Abstinence should be emphasized, and children need to know to wait until they recognize and can control these situations. And yes, they should even wait until they are married and are prepared to have a family. When children have that relationship with their parents, where they can trust mom and dad with anything, studies have shown that they are more likely to put off sex until they are older, have fewer sex partners and use contraception.
We have a society today where there are so many distractions from good family relationships. In television shows, people are very free and open about sex. But sex is not portrayed in a realistic manner. There are very few pregnancies and very few deal with the other negative consequences of sexual activity.
Many children live in single parent homes, and when mom or dad is absent because of work or other choices, children are less likely to develop that strong bond and are more likely to experiment with sexual activity before they can recognize that nature is taking it's course. In these situations, it is unlikely that sex education lectures are going to be of help the majority of kids. But a small percentage will heed their lessons and will take steps to protect themselves.
As a fiscal conservative, that means fewer kids growing up in welfare and in foster care. That means less money being spent at the state level on social programs. As a social conservative, one must recognize that fewer out-of-wedlock pregnancies will lead to fewer abortions. If you want conservative principles, I have just spelled it out for you. But let me say it again...less money spent on social program and fewer abortions. That's conservatism. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If 1% of the children in a sex ed class listen and take steps to protect themselves, thousands of state dollars are saved.
This bill was vetoed on a Friday Evening, the day after the Republican Caucus in Utah. Many people have viewed the timing of the veto as spineless and as poor leadership. I disagree with this assessment. The abstinence-only bill has turned into a beehive in a tempest in a teapot. A good leader sometimes recognizes that one should not kick the teapot. By removing the teapot when he did, he will still get stung, Governor Herbert's opponents will use it against him. But the controversy will fade when people in Utah are spending the weekend doing other things. The governor also put as much time as he possibly could between the veto and the Republican Convention in April. That is not necessarily good leadership, but it is the mark of an experienced and well seasoned politician. No matter what Gary Herbert did with this bill, it was going to make him look bad. The state legislature painted the governor in a corner. I suspect that the Governor, in his debates, will throw it back on his opponents and say, "don't tell me what you would not do...tell me what you would have done instead." Not everyone believes that this veto, and it's timing was the mark of poor leadership.
But if you want the governor to stand by his principles and make a big announcement of the veto and a big show of it on the eve of the GOP caucuses across the state, what could have happened? Want to get rid of Orrin Hatch? Want to discuss keeping Hill Air Force Base open? (A hot topic at my caucus). This Sex Ed bill would have been the hot topic. Hatch would waltz to a general election victory, and other conservative issues would not have been discussed. Wait too long, then this is the hot topic at the state convention. The governor was smart to diffuse this controversy as much as possible.
The bill has stirred up a lot of controversy in the State of Utah. Many experts believe that abstinence-only Sex Education is not effective in preventing teenage pregnancy and out-of-wedlock child birth. I agree that it is not effective at all.
The problem is that we do a lousy job at teach kids how to avoid situations where "Mother Nature" is going to take control, even in church. But even that is not the most effective form of Sex Education.
I have read many studies since this bill was being debated. I have learned that the most effective method to prevent teen pregnancy has little to do with education at all. The most effective way to prevent teenage pregnancy is for parents to take the time to develop a good relationship with their children. This does two things. First, children will not seek for substitutes to their parents love. Second, children will trust their parent's opinions about many things including sex.
I know that things happen between kids when they allow themselves to be alone. Often, teens will find themselves sliding down that slippery slope to the procreative act before they realize what is happening and before they are prepared. At that point, any lecture about birth control isn't going to be remembered. Abstinence should be emphasized, and children need to know to wait until they recognize and can control these situations. And yes, they should even wait until they are married and are prepared to have a family. When children have that relationship with their parents, where they can trust mom and dad with anything, studies have shown that they are more likely to put off sex until they are older, have fewer sex partners and use contraception.
We have a society today where there are so many distractions from good family relationships. In television shows, people are very free and open about sex. But sex is not portrayed in a realistic manner. There are very few pregnancies and very few deal with the other negative consequences of sexual activity.
Many children live in single parent homes, and when mom or dad is absent because of work or other choices, children are less likely to develop that strong bond and are more likely to experiment with sexual activity before they can recognize that nature is taking it's course. In these situations, it is unlikely that sex education lectures are going to be of help the majority of kids. But a small percentage will heed their lessons and will take steps to protect themselves.
As a fiscal conservative, that means fewer kids growing up in welfare and in foster care. That means less money being spent at the state level on social programs. As a social conservative, one must recognize that fewer out-of-wedlock pregnancies will lead to fewer abortions. If you want conservative principles, I have just spelled it out for you. But let me say it again...less money spent on social program and fewer abortions. That's conservatism. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If 1% of the children in a sex ed class listen and take steps to protect themselves, thousands of state dollars are saved.
This bill was vetoed on a Friday Evening, the day after the Republican Caucus in Utah. Many people have viewed the timing of the veto as spineless and as poor leadership. I disagree with this assessment. The abstinence-only bill has turned into a beehive in a tempest in a teapot. A good leader sometimes recognizes that one should not kick the teapot. By removing the teapot when he did, he will still get stung, Governor Herbert's opponents will use it against him. But the controversy will fade when people in Utah are spending the weekend doing other things. The governor also put as much time as he possibly could between the veto and the Republican Convention in April. That is not necessarily good leadership, but it is the mark of an experienced and well seasoned politician. No matter what Gary Herbert did with this bill, it was going to make him look bad. The state legislature painted the governor in a corner. I suspect that the Governor, in his debates, will throw it back on his opponents and say, "don't tell me what you would not do...tell me what you would have done instead." Not everyone believes that this veto, and it's timing was the mark of poor leadership.
But if you want the governor to stand by his principles and make a big announcement of the veto and a big show of it on the eve of the GOP caucuses across the state, what could have happened? Want to get rid of Orrin Hatch? Want to discuss keeping Hill Air Force Base open? (A hot topic at my caucus). This Sex Ed bill would have been the hot topic. Hatch would waltz to a general election victory, and other conservative issues would not have been discussed. Wait too long, then this is the hot topic at the state convention. The governor was smart to diffuse this controversy as much as possible.
Monday, March 12, 2012
How is Mitt Romney not a "True" Conservative.
Here are the differences between Governor Romney's record and the Christian Right of the United State.
1. Education. If Romney were a true conservative as governor of Massachusetts, he would have fought for school choice, abstinence-only sex education and replacing the instruction of evolution with either intelligent design or creationism.
2. Christian Nation. If Romney were a true conservative, he would realize that the United State was founded by Christians and only true Christians have the right to govern. He would denounce his membership in the cultist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (ie Mormon Religion) and accepted the true Jesus Christ as his personal savior.
3. Separation of Church and State. A true conservative believes that the Separation of Church and State only applies to Congress (Congress shall make no laws...) but not to the states.
4. Welfare. A true conservative pushes those who are on welfare to be self-reliant and not to depend upon a system of transfer payments.
5. Israel. A true conservative stands firmly with the Nation of Israel in the Middle East and recognizes their right to defend themselves against Islamic extremist. Romney has not been strong enough in the defense of Israel.
6. Abortion. When running for the Senate in Massachusetts, Romney clearly stated that he was pro-choice and conveniently changed his stance when running for President.
7. Homosexuality. A true conservative respects traditional marriage and does not accept any alternatives. Same-sex marriage became law in Massachusetts while Mr. Romney was governor and he-himself issued licenses to same-sex couples.
8. Health Care. There is no need for universal health care coverage. It is simply too expensive. Therefore, it was wrong for the Governor to sign it into law in Massachusetts.
Defenses.
1. Education. Mr. Romney was the Governor of Massachusetts, one of the most liberal, progressive and democratic states in the United State. Had such a bill been introduced in the legislature, it would have never made it out of committee. In his speeches, Romney has clearly taken a more conservative side on the issue, arguing for trimming the department of Education and giving more power to the states. He has not gone so far to state that the federal Department of Education should itself be cut, and that is where most Christian Conservatives disagree with Romney.
2. Religion. Mr. Romney makes no apologies for his religious beliefs.
3. Separation of Church and State. Another disagreement that will likely not be breached as Romney believes that the separation of Church and State applies at all levels of Government.
4. Welfare. Governor Romney's statements on welfare have focused on increasing the quality of life and dignity of the welfare recipient where a Christian Conservative focuses on the need for government to even have a welfare program.
5. Israel. Romney has consistently stated that the Arab States should recognize that the Nation of Israel has the right to exist and that the US Taxpayer should not support those whose belief system includes the destruction of the Jewish nation. He has remained silent on the issue of whether or not Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
6. Abortion. When running for the Senate, Romney stated that he was pro-choice. Then Kennedy aired an add featuring a former Mormon who Romney counselled to giver her baby up for adoption rather than to have an abortion when he was an LDS Stake President in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Romney then flipped back to pro-life as Governor of Massachusetts when he vetoed a bill to allow the use of aborted fetuses in stem cell research. He has been consistently pro-life ever since. It is not that Mr. Romney's views are in total disagreement with the Christian Right. The CR simply uses Mr. Romney stance on abortion as a sword against him. There have been instances where other candidates have taken a stand similar to Romney's whom they have forgiven.
7. Homosexuality. The State Supreme Court in Massachusetts ruled that prohibiting same-sex marriage violated the state constitution when Romney was governor. Romney pushed for an election, similar to what other states have passed, for a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage. This bill was defeated twice by the legislature. When that bill was defeated, Romney himself did sign some same-sex marriage licenses. The CR contents that this is evidence of how Mitt has flip flopped on the issue. Romney does support rights for homosexuals, but in his speeches, he has consistently been an opponent of same-sex marriage and civil unions. Romney has worked with the Log Cabin Republicans...a group of Republicans who support gay rights, but are otherwise consistent in the support of GOP causes. This is one of the biggest disagreements between Romney and the Christian Right.
This, by the way, is not inconsistent with the stance of the LDS church. The church to which Romney belongs does oppose same-sex unions, but has been supportive of legislation to eliminate discrimination against LGBT in employment and housing. They supported one such law in Salt Lake City, when all of the city council members were LDS.
8. Health Care. As governor of Massachusetts, Romney signed a bill providing for broader health care in his state. This has been dubbed, Romneycare. Many have stated that this was the template for Obama Care. This is one of the big issues dogging Romney today, who maintains that his health care plan was a state solution to a state problem. While he opposes a federal mandate for health insurance, there was a state mandate in Massachusetts. Romney stated that he will sign a waiver for all 50 states to exempt them from Obama care and allow them to pursue state health care plans.
Astroturf Republican opinion on all this.
The differences between Mitt Romney and his Tea Party critics boil down to three issues. 1. His religion. 2. His stance on LGBT rights and 3. The Massachusetts health care plan known as Obama care. Many will say that he has flip flopped on abortion, but he has been on the pro-life side since he vetoed the stem cell bill in Massachusetts. People use this as an excuse, where others are allowed to "repent" of their repugnant issues.
Romney is not the perfect presidential candidate. That person, we have maintained, does not exist. There are those who are closer to our beliefs than Mitt Romney, but the did not have the organization to wrestle the nomination away from Romney. If Romney continues to build a delegate lead, it is time for the other get out before they cost anyone a chance to beat Obama in November.
1. Education. If Romney were a true conservative as governor of Massachusetts, he would have fought for school choice, abstinence-only sex education and replacing the instruction of evolution with either intelligent design or creationism.
2. Christian Nation. If Romney were a true conservative, he would realize that the United State was founded by Christians and only true Christians have the right to govern. He would denounce his membership in the cultist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (ie Mormon Religion) and accepted the true Jesus Christ as his personal savior.
3. Separation of Church and State. A true conservative believes that the Separation of Church and State only applies to Congress (Congress shall make no laws...) but not to the states.
4. Welfare. A true conservative pushes those who are on welfare to be self-reliant and not to depend upon a system of transfer payments.
5. Israel. A true conservative stands firmly with the Nation of Israel in the Middle East and recognizes their right to defend themselves against Islamic extremist. Romney has not been strong enough in the defense of Israel.
6. Abortion. When running for the Senate in Massachusetts, Romney clearly stated that he was pro-choice and conveniently changed his stance when running for President.
7. Homosexuality. A true conservative respects traditional marriage and does not accept any alternatives. Same-sex marriage became law in Massachusetts while Mr. Romney was governor and he-himself issued licenses to same-sex couples.
8. Health Care. There is no need for universal health care coverage. It is simply too expensive. Therefore, it was wrong for the Governor to sign it into law in Massachusetts.
Defenses.
1. Education. Mr. Romney was the Governor of Massachusetts, one of the most liberal, progressive and democratic states in the United State. Had such a bill been introduced in the legislature, it would have never made it out of committee. In his speeches, Romney has clearly taken a more conservative side on the issue, arguing for trimming the department of Education and giving more power to the states. He has not gone so far to state that the federal Department of Education should itself be cut, and that is where most Christian Conservatives disagree with Romney.
2. Religion. Mr. Romney makes no apologies for his religious beliefs.
3. Separation of Church and State. Another disagreement that will likely not be breached as Romney believes that the separation of Church and State applies at all levels of Government.
4. Welfare. Governor Romney's statements on welfare have focused on increasing the quality of life and dignity of the welfare recipient where a Christian Conservative focuses on the need for government to even have a welfare program.
5. Israel. Romney has consistently stated that the Arab States should recognize that the Nation of Israel has the right to exist and that the US Taxpayer should not support those whose belief system includes the destruction of the Jewish nation. He has remained silent on the issue of whether or not Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
6. Abortion. When running for the Senate, Romney stated that he was pro-choice. Then Kennedy aired an add featuring a former Mormon who Romney counselled to giver her baby up for adoption rather than to have an abortion when he was an LDS Stake President in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Romney then flipped back to pro-life as Governor of Massachusetts when he vetoed a bill to allow the use of aborted fetuses in stem cell research. He has been consistently pro-life ever since. It is not that Mr. Romney's views are in total disagreement with the Christian Right. The CR simply uses Mr. Romney stance on abortion as a sword against him. There have been instances where other candidates have taken a stand similar to Romney's whom they have forgiven.
7. Homosexuality. The State Supreme Court in Massachusetts ruled that prohibiting same-sex marriage violated the state constitution when Romney was governor. Romney pushed for an election, similar to what other states have passed, for a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage. This bill was defeated twice by the legislature. When that bill was defeated, Romney himself did sign some same-sex marriage licenses. The CR contents that this is evidence of how Mitt has flip flopped on the issue. Romney does support rights for homosexuals, but in his speeches, he has consistently been an opponent of same-sex marriage and civil unions. Romney has worked with the Log Cabin Republicans...a group of Republicans who support gay rights, but are otherwise consistent in the support of GOP causes. This is one of the biggest disagreements between Romney and the Christian Right.
This, by the way, is not inconsistent with the stance of the LDS church. The church to which Romney belongs does oppose same-sex unions, but has been supportive of legislation to eliminate discrimination against LGBT in employment and housing. They supported one such law in Salt Lake City, when all of the city council members were LDS.
8. Health Care. As governor of Massachusetts, Romney signed a bill providing for broader health care in his state. This has been dubbed, Romneycare. Many have stated that this was the template for Obama Care. This is one of the big issues dogging Romney today, who maintains that his health care plan was a state solution to a state problem. While he opposes a federal mandate for health insurance, there was a state mandate in Massachusetts. Romney stated that he will sign a waiver for all 50 states to exempt them from Obama care and allow them to pursue state health care plans.
Astroturf Republican opinion on all this.
The differences between Mitt Romney and his Tea Party critics boil down to three issues. 1. His religion. 2. His stance on LGBT rights and 3. The Massachusetts health care plan known as Obama care. Many will say that he has flip flopped on abortion, but he has been on the pro-life side since he vetoed the stem cell bill in Massachusetts. People use this as an excuse, where others are allowed to "repent" of their repugnant issues.
Romney is not the perfect presidential candidate. That person, we have maintained, does not exist. There are those who are closer to our beliefs than Mitt Romney, but the did not have the organization to wrestle the nomination away from Romney. If Romney continues to build a delegate lead, it is time for the other get out before they cost anyone a chance to beat Obama in November.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Now that Super Tuesday is Over...Why the Romeny Nomination is In the Bag.
Yesterday, this blog focused on why the GOP nomination is far from over. Today, we argue the other side of the coin, why the nomination is in the bag.
Now that Super Tuesday is over, we know the pattern of how the GOP nomination is going. You can tell how the rest of the GOP primaries will go based upon only three factors. 1. The Urban/Rural mix of the state. 2. How hard the state was hit by the last recession and 3. The religious makeup of the state.
The more urban the state, the better for Romney. He is doing well in urban areas, where Santorum is doing better in rural areas. Best example of this is Ohio. When I say urban, I mean that most of the state's population lives in the city. Utah is urban, even though most of the state is "empty" because most of the people live in the Salt Lake City metro.
The harder the state was hit by the last recession, the better for Romney, as he is considered the stronger fiscal conservative. The better the state has weathered the recession, the better for Santorum. Best example is Colorado and Nevada. Colorado has weathered the recession better than most states. Nevada has not. Nevada went to Romney, Colorado went to Santorum. The harder hit by the recession, the more important the economy is to the voter. The better the state has weathered the recession, the more likely social conservatism matters to the voter. The Rockies and the Gulf Coast have weathered the recession better than most states. The rest of the US was hard hit.
The third factor is the religious makeup of the state. Santorum does better with evangelical protestants, such as Southern Baptists and conservative Lutherans. Romney does better with Roman Catholics, traditional protestants such as Episcopalians and Mormons. Religion is probably the most important factor. Wyoming is the best example of this. Even though Wyoming is rural and the state has weathered the recession, there is a strong Mormon contingent in the state and that explains why the state went to Romney.
Here is how the primaries have gone so far...
Iowa...rural population, hard hit by the recession, evanglical protestants...Minor Santorum win.
New Hampshire...Mostly suburban, hard hit by the recession, mostly episcopal...Romney win.
South Carolina...Mostly rural, weathered recession, mostly baptist...Gingrich win.
Florida...Mostly urban, hard hit by recession, religiously heterogeneous...Romney win
Maine...Rural, hard hit by the recession and protestant...Romney
Nevada...Urban, hard hit by the recession and Mormon...Romney
Colorado...Urban, weathered the recession and evangelical...Santorum
Minnesota...Urban, weathered the recession and lutheran...Santorum
Missouri...urban, weathered the recession and evangelical...Santorum
Arizona...urban, hard hit by the recession and Mormon...Romney
Michigan...urban, hard hit by the recession and heterogeneous...Romney
Washington...urban, hard hit by the recession and heterogeneous...Romney
Alaska...urban, hard hit by the recession and heterogeneous...Romney
Georgia...urban, weathered the recession and evangelical...Gingrich
Note: Gingrich home state
Idaho...rural, weathered the recession and Mormon...Romney
Massachusetts...urban, hard hit by the recession and Catholic...Romney
Note: Romney's ACTUAL home state
North Dakota...rural, weathered the recession and Lutheran...Santorum
Ohio...urban, hard hit by the recession and heterogeneous...Romney
Oklahoma...urban, weathered the recession and evangelical...Santorum
Tennessee...rural, weathered the recession and evangelical...Santorum
Vermont...rural, hard hit by the recession and heterogeneous...Romney
Virginia...Urban, hard hit by the recession and evangelical...Romney
Note: Gingrich and Santorum did not make the primary ballot in Virginia
Wyoming...rural, weathered the recession and Mormon...Romney
Therefore, here is how the rest of the primaries will go...
March 10.
Kansas...Mostly urban, hard hit by the recession and mostly traditional protestant...Romney.
March 13
Alabama...Mostly urban, weathered recession and evangelical...Santorum.
Note: best chance for Romney in the deep south.
Hawaii...Mostly urban, hard hit by the recession and strong Mormon population...Romney
Mississippi...Mostly rural, weathered the recession and evangelical...Santorum.
March 20
Illinois...Mostly urban, hard hit by the recession and traditional protestant...Romney
March 24
Louisiana...Mostly urban, hard hit by the recession and evangelical...Santorum
April 3
Maryland...urban, hard hit by the recession and traditional protestant...Romney
Wisconsin...rural, hard hit by the recession and mostly Lutheran...Santorum.
April 24
Connecticut...urban, hard hit by the recession and Catholic...Romney
Delaware...urban, hard hit by the recession and heterogeneous...Romney
Note: outside of Pennsylvania, best chance for Santorum in the northeast.
New York...urban, hard hit by the recession and heterogeneous...Romney
Pennsylvania...Santorum's home state, but demographically a Romney State...Romney could secure the nomination here if he can steal this state from Santorum...urban, hard hit by the recession and religiously heterogeneous.
Rhode Island...Urban, hard hit by the recession and Catholic...Romney
May 8
Indiana...urban, hard hit by the recession and the loss of Peyton Manning and Catholic...Romney
North Carolina...urban, weathered the recession and evangelical...Santorum
West Virginia...rural, hard hit by the recession and Baptist...Santorum
May 15
Nebraska...rural, weathered the recession and Lutheran...Santorum
Romney could steal Nebraska...as this state is becoming more urbanized.
Oregon...urban, hard hit by the recession and heterogeneous...Romney
May 22
Arkansas...rural, weathered the recession and evangelical...Santorum
Kentucky...rural, hard hit by the recession and evangelical...Santorum
May 29
Texas...urban, weathered the recession and evangelical...Santorum
June 5
California...urban, hard hit by the recession and heterogeneous...Romney
Montana...rural, weathered the recession and heterogeneous...Santorum
New Jersey...urban, hard hit by the recession and heterogenous...Romney
New Mexico...urban, weathered the recession and Catholic...Romney
South Dakota...rural, weathered the recession and lutheran...Santorum
June 26
Utah...urban, weathered the recession and Mormon...Romney
Here is the current delegate count...
Romney 415...50%
Santorum 176...21%
Gingrich 105...13%
Paul 47...6%
Huntsman 2...0%
Unpledged 86...10%
Total 831
There are 1541 delegates left in play. 1144 needed for nomination. Mitt Romney needs 729. Rick Santorum needs 968. Romney needs 47% of the remaining delegates to win. Santorum needs 63% of the remaining delegates. If Santorum wins all of the delegates in the deep south, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky and Texas or 580 delegates, he still needs to come up with 388 delegates in the other states. Of these states, only his home state of Pennsylvania is a winner-take-all primary. In Tennessee, which is likely the template for the remaining south, Santorum won 43% of the delegates. If he wins 50% of the delegates in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, he gets 202 delegates to go with the 71 delegates he gets from Pennsylvania. That is 273. Meaning his campaign has to get 695 delegates from the other states. That is 82% of the delegates outside of the very strong evangelical states. The math does not work out to the favor of the Santorum campaign.
Realistically, the best that Santorum can hope for is to hold Mitt Romney under 1144 and have the convention decide the nomination. If he truly wants to see Obama defeated, this is not the path to take. Truly, Kansas and Illinois are must win states for Santorum if he wants to see Obama defeated. If the current pattern continues, Romney will likely secure the nomination no later than the California primary.
Now that Super Tuesday is over, we know the pattern of how the GOP nomination is going. You can tell how the rest of the GOP primaries will go based upon only three factors. 1. The Urban/Rural mix of the state. 2. How hard the state was hit by the last recession and 3. The religious makeup of the state.
The more urban the state, the better for Romney. He is doing well in urban areas, where Santorum is doing better in rural areas. Best example of this is Ohio. When I say urban, I mean that most of the state's population lives in the city. Utah is urban, even though most of the state is "empty" because most of the people live in the Salt Lake City metro.
The harder the state was hit by the last recession, the better for Romney, as he is considered the stronger fiscal conservative. The better the state has weathered the recession, the better for Santorum. Best example is Colorado and Nevada. Colorado has weathered the recession better than most states. Nevada has not. Nevada went to Romney, Colorado went to Santorum. The harder hit by the recession, the more important the economy is to the voter. The better the state has weathered the recession, the more likely social conservatism matters to the voter. The Rockies and the Gulf Coast have weathered the recession better than most states. The rest of the US was hard hit.
The third factor is the religious makeup of the state. Santorum does better with evangelical protestants, such as Southern Baptists and conservative Lutherans. Romney does better with Roman Catholics, traditional protestants such as Episcopalians and Mormons. Religion is probably the most important factor. Wyoming is the best example of this. Even though Wyoming is rural and the state has weathered the recession, there is a strong Mormon contingent in the state and that explains why the state went to Romney.
Here is how the primaries have gone so far...
Iowa...rural population, hard hit by the recession, evanglical protestants...Minor Santorum win.
New Hampshire...Mostly suburban, hard hit by the recession, mostly episcopal...Romney win.
South Carolina...Mostly rural, weathered recession, mostly baptist...Gingrich win.
Florida...Mostly urban, hard hit by recession, religiously heterogeneous...Romney win
Maine...Rural, hard hit by the recession and protestant...Romney
Nevada...Urban, hard hit by the recession and Mormon...Romney
Colorado...Urban, weathered the recession and evangelical...Santorum
Minnesota...Urban, weathered the recession and lutheran...Santorum
Missouri...urban, weathered the recession and evangelical...Santorum
Arizona...urban, hard hit by the recession and Mormon...Romney
Michigan...urban, hard hit by the recession and heterogeneous...Romney
Washington...urban, hard hit by the recession and heterogeneous...Romney
Alaska...urban, hard hit by the recession and heterogeneous...Romney
Georgia...urban, weathered the recession and evangelical...Gingrich
Note: Gingrich home state
Idaho...rural, weathered the recession and Mormon...Romney
Massachusetts...urban, hard hit by the recession and Catholic...Romney
Note: Romney's ACTUAL home state
North Dakota...rural, weathered the recession and Lutheran...Santorum
Ohio...urban, hard hit by the recession and heterogeneous...Romney
Oklahoma...urban, weathered the recession and evangelical...Santorum
Tennessee...rural, weathered the recession and evangelical...Santorum
Vermont...rural, hard hit by the recession and heterogeneous...Romney
Virginia...Urban, hard hit by the recession and evangelical...Romney
Note: Gingrich and Santorum did not make the primary ballot in Virginia
Wyoming...rural, weathered the recession and Mormon...Romney
Therefore, here is how the rest of the primaries will go...
March 10.
Kansas...Mostly urban, hard hit by the recession and mostly traditional protestant...Romney.
March 13
Alabama...Mostly urban, weathered recession and evangelical...Santorum.
Note: best chance for Romney in the deep south.
Hawaii...Mostly urban, hard hit by the recession and strong Mormon population...Romney
Mississippi...Mostly rural, weathered the recession and evangelical...Santorum.
March 20
Illinois...Mostly urban, hard hit by the recession and traditional protestant...Romney
March 24
Louisiana...Mostly urban, hard hit by the recession and evangelical...Santorum
April 3
Maryland...urban, hard hit by the recession and traditional protestant...Romney
Wisconsin...rural, hard hit by the recession and mostly Lutheran...Santorum.
April 24
Connecticut...urban, hard hit by the recession and Catholic...Romney
Delaware...urban, hard hit by the recession and heterogeneous...Romney
Note: outside of Pennsylvania, best chance for Santorum in the northeast.
New York...urban, hard hit by the recession and heterogeneous...Romney
Pennsylvania...Santorum's home state, but demographically a Romney State...Romney could secure the nomination here if he can steal this state from Santorum...urban, hard hit by the recession and religiously heterogeneous.
Rhode Island...Urban, hard hit by the recession and Catholic...Romney
May 8
Indiana...urban, hard hit by the recession and the loss of Peyton Manning and Catholic...Romney
North Carolina...urban, weathered the recession and evangelical...Santorum
West Virginia...rural, hard hit by the recession and Baptist...Santorum
May 15
Nebraska...rural, weathered the recession and Lutheran...Santorum
Romney could steal Nebraska...as this state is becoming more urbanized.
Oregon...urban, hard hit by the recession and heterogeneous...Romney
May 22
Arkansas...rural, weathered the recession and evangelical...Santorum
Kentucky...rural, hard hit by the recession and evangelical...Santorum
May 29
Texas...urban, weathered the recession and evangelical...Santorum
June 5
California...urban, hard hit by the recession and heterogeneous...Romney
Montana...rural, weathered the recession and heterogeneous...Santorum
New Jersey...urban, hard hit by the recession and heterogenous...Romney
New Mexico...urban, weathered the recession and Catholic...Romney
South Dakota...rural, weathered the recession and lutheran...Santorum
June 26
Utah...urban, weathered the recession and Mormon...Romney
Here is the current delegate count...
Romney 415...50%
Santorum 176...21%
Gingrich 105...13%
Paul 47...6%
Huntsman 2...0%
Unpledged 86...10%
Total 831
There are 1541 delegates left in play. 1144 needed for nomination. Mitt Romney needs 729. Rick Santorum needs 968. Romney needs 47% of the remaining delegates to win. Santorum needs 63% of the remaining delegates. If Santorum wins all of the delegates in the deep south, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky and Texas or 580 delegates, he still needs to come up with 388 delegates in the other states. Of these states, only his home state of Pennsylvania is a winner-take-all primary. In Tennessee, which is likely the template for the remaining south, Santorum won 43% of the delegates. If he wins 50% of the delegates in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, he gets 202 delegates to go with the 71 delegates he gets from Pennsylvania. That is 273. Meaning his campaign has to get 695 delegates from the other states. That is 82% of the delegates outside of the very strong evangelical states. The math does not work out to the favor of the Santorum campaign.
Realistically, the best that Santorum can hope for is to hold Mitt Romney under 1144 and have the convention decide the nomination. If he truly wants to see Obama defeated, this is not the path to take. Truly, Kansas and Illinois are must win states for Santorum if he wants to see Obama defeated. If the current pattern continues, Romney will likely secure the nomination no later than the California primary.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Now that Super Tuesday is Over...Why the GOP Race is Not
Updated
The question, now that Super Tuesday 2012 is history, is it time for Santorum, Gingrich and Paul to throw in the towel and let Mitt Romney be the de facto GOP nominee. My gut tells me no.
Going into Super Tuesday, here was the delegate count...
Romney 180...52%
Santorum 90...26%
Gingrich 29...8%
Paul 23...7%
Huntsman 2...0.5%
Unpledged 21...6%
Total...345
With Super Tuesday in the books, here is the current delegate count...
Romney 415...50%
Santorum 176...21%
Gingrich 105...13%
Paul 47...6%
Huntsman 2...0%
Unpledged 86...10%
Total 831
It is clear that Super Tuesday settled nothing other than to keep Gingrich and Paul in the race. The other two guys were the clear winners. True, Santorum won three states and Romney won six, but Romney did not increase his overall percentage of delegates, and neither did Santorum. It is not any more a two-man race than it was on Monday.
However, if you discount the 46 delegates that Gingrich won in his home state, then perhaps Romney was the winner after all. Outside of Gingrich's Georgia victory, Romney did increase his overall share.
Many political analyst are still saying that this race could go to the convention, undecided. This would be very bad for the GOP. I have pointed out in the past week that the GOP has never won the General Election when they have had a contested convention and an incumbent has been in the Oval Office.
Romney will be the nominee the way that things are going, he will likely wrap up the nomination with the California primary in June. If the current pattern holds, Romney will win in the Northeast, the Mountain West--except for Colorado and New Mexico and the Pacific. Romney has won a couple of close races in the industrial mid-west. Romney already has New Hampshire, Florida, Maine, Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, Washington, Idaho, Massachusetts, Ohio, Vermont, Virginia, Wyoming and Alaska. That is 14 so far. Expect these yet to be contested states go to Romney; Hawaii and the Pacific Territories, Maryland, California, Oregon, Connecticut, Delaware, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Montana and Utah. That is another 12. For a total of 26. Plus, expect that Illinois and Indiana, if the pattern holds, will be tough fought Romney wins. That is 28 states and a boat load of delegates, especially New York and California. Expect Romney wins in Puerto Rico and DC as well. That leaves Santorum with 20 states, including Texas and their mother lode of delegates, and Gingrich with 2. Romney should have just enough delegates to win the nomination before the convention, with California putting him over the top. If not California, then Utah, where Romney will be the clear winner.
If Gingrich drops out, the South Carolina delegates go to Romney and the Georgia delegates go to Santorum, the 2nd place winner in those respective states. That is 27 states for Romney and 21 states for Santorum. But the big prize is Texas, and if the regional pattern holds up, Texas goes to Santorum, and that does keep the nomination in doubt, slightly. But it should still add up to a Romney victory. The bad news for Santorum is that while Romney has won some landslide victories and taken all of the delegates in some states, Santorum's victories have been close, and he has had to split the delegates. That is the main reason why Mitt Romney has a commanding delegate lead.
There are several problems for Romney and GOP nominee watchers. Santorum is winning in the states that the traditional GOP candidate wins in the General election, except for those out west. Romney is winning in states that are likely to go to Obama. But that could also be spun for Romney and his claim that he, alone, can beat Obama. He is winning over people that normally do not vote for the GOP candidate, or the people who were once called Reagan Democrats. In the cities, the urban and suburban areas hardest hit by the last recession, Romney is the clear winner, even in Tennessee. In the areas where voters are more likely to be voting based upon traditional GOP values, Santorum is the big winner.
The next problem for Romney is that the 3 of the next 4 of primary states; Hawaii, Kansas, Mississippi and Alabama are in Santorum territory, where the only state, out of the next four in Romney territory is Hawaii. Santorum could have a ton of momentum going into the Illinois primary on March 20 and that could end up as a Santorum upset win. Clearly, all have work to do. If Gingrich wins either Mississippi or Alabama, then he could rise up and steal the nomination.
This is what has to happen for the nomination to be over: Romney needs to win either Kansas, Mississippi or Alabama and hold onto Hawaii and Illinois. If it does that, he can say that he won in Santorum territory, and put in doubt an eventual Santorum win in Texas. It would also help Romney for influential GOP leaders to continue to call for the party to unite behind Romney.
What Santorum has to do is win Kansas, Mississippi, Alabama and Illinois and then possibly have enough momentum to win one of the states in the Northeast on April 24. It would help if he could win in Hawaii as well.
The timing of the next few primaries is what is bad news for Romney and good news for Santorum. But if Romney can win a few key endorsements from key figures in Kansas, Mississippi and Alabama and steal one or two of those primaries, this nomination race will, at last, be over.
Latest Polls...
Kansas...no published polls since November
Mississippi...no published polls since November, but Santorum "is expected to do very well"
Alabama...no published polls, but Alabama has "a high level of evangelical christians"
Texas...Santorum with 28 point lead.
New York...Romney with a 16 point lead
Pennsylvania...Santorum with a 30 point lead
California...Romney with a 16 point lead.
The question, now that Super Tuesday 2012 is history, is it time for Santorum, Gingrich and Paul to throw in the towel and let Mitt Romney be the de facto GOP nominee. My gut tells me no.
Going into Super Tuesday, here was the delegate count...
Romney 180...52%
Santorum 90...26%
Gingrich 29...8%
Paul 23...7%
Huntsman 2...0.5%
Unpledged 21...6%
Total...345
With Super Tuesday in the books, here is the current delegate count...
Romney 415...50%
Santorum 176...21%
Gingrich 105...13%
Paul 47...6%
Huntsman 2...0%
Unpledged 86...10%
Total 831
It is clear that Super Tuesday settled nothing other than to keep Gingrich and Paul in the race. The other two guys were the clear winners. True, Santorum won three states and Romney won six, but Romney did not increase his overall percentage of delegates, and neither did Santorum. It is not any more a two-man race than it was on Monday.
However, if you discount the 46 delegates that Gingrich won in his home state, then perhaps Romney was the winner after all. Outside of Gingrich's Georgia victory, Romney did increase his overall share.
Many political analyst are still saying that this race could go to the convention, undecided. This would be very bad for the GOP. I have pointed out in the past week that the GOP has never won the General Election when they have had a contested convention and an incumbent has been in the Oval Office.
Romney will be the nominee the way that things are going, he will likely wrap up the nomination with the California primary in June. If the current pattern holds, Romney will win in the Northeast, the Mountain West--except for Colorado and New Mexico and the Pacific. Romney has won a couple of close races in the industrial mid-west. Romney already has New Hampshire, Florida, Maine, Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, Washington, Idaho, Massachusetts, Ohio, Vermont, Virginia, Wyoming and Alaska. That is 14 so far. Expect these yet to be contested states go to Romney; Hawaii and the Pacific Territories, Maryland, California, Oregon, Connecticut, Delaware, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Montana and Utah. That is another 12. For a total of 26. Plus, expect that Illinois and Indiana, if the pattern holds, will be tough fought Romney wins. That is 28 states and a boat load of delegates, especially New York and California. Expect Romney wins in Puerto Rico and DC as well. That leaves Santorum with 20 states, including Texas and their mother lode of delegates, and Gingrich with 2. Romney should have just enough delegates to win the nomination before the convention, with California putting him over the top. If not California, then Utah, where Romney will be the clear winner.
If Gingrich drops out, the South Carolina delegates go to Romney and the Georgia delegates go to Santorum, the 2nd place winner in those respective states. That is 27 states for Romney and 21 states for Santorum. But the big prize is Texas, and if the regional pattern holds up, Texas goes to Santorum, and that does keep the nomination in doubt, slightly. But it should still add up to a Romney victory. The bad news for Santorum is that while Romney has won some landslide victories and taken all of the delegates in some states, Santorum's victories have been close, and he has had to split the delegates. That is the main reason why Mitt Romney has a commanding delegate lead.
There are several problems for Romney and GOP nominee watchers. Santorum is winning in the states that the traditional GOP candidate wins in the General election, except for those out west. Romney is winning in states that are likely to go to Obama. But that could also be spun for Romney and his claim that he, alone, can beat Obama. He is winning over people that normally do not vote for the GOP candidate, or the people who were once called Reagan Democrats. In the cities, the urban and suburban areas hardest hit by the last recession, Romney is the clear winner, even in Tennessee. In the areas where voters are more likely to be voting based upon traditional GOP values, Santorum is the big winner.
The next problem for Romney is that the 3 of the next 4 of primary states; Hawaii, Kansas, Mississippi and Alabama are in Santorum territory, where the only state, out of the next four in Romney territory is Hawaii. Santorum could have a ton of momentum going into the Illinois primary on March 20 and that could end up as a Santorum upset win. Clearly, all have work to do. If Gingrich wins either Mississippi or Alabama, then he could rise up and steal the nomination.
This is what has to happen for the nomination to be over: Romney needs to win either Kansas, Mississippi or Alabama and hold onto Hawaii and Illinois. If it does that, he can say that he won in Santorum territory, and put in doubt an eventual Santorum win in Texas. It would also help Romney for influential GOP leaders to continue to call for the party to unite behind Romney.
What Santorum has to do is win Kansas, Mississippi, Alabama and Illinois and then possibly have enough momentum to win one of the states in the Northeast on April 24. It would help if he could win in Hawaii as well.
The timing of the next few primaries is what is bad news for Romney and good news for Santorum. But if Romney can win a few key endorsements from key figures in Kansas, Mississippi and Alabama and steal one or two of those primaries, this nomination race will, at last, be over.
Latest Polls...
Kansas...no published polls since November
Mississippi...no published polls since November, but Santorum "is expected to do very well"
Alabama...no published polls, but Alabama has "a high level of evangelical christians"
Texas...Santorum with 28 point lead.
New York...Romney with a 16 point lead
Pennsylvania...Santorum with a 30 point lead
California...Romney with a 16 point lead.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Should Contraception Be Covered by Insurance?
I am stepping into this debate, the debate about contraception. To me, it has become about as pleasant as raw sewage. It is a debate which may have cost Rick Santorum a chance at the GOP nomination, and has cost talk show host, Rush Limbaugh, a lot of problems with his advertisers.
What Rush Limbaugh said about the Law Student who testified before the democrats in Congress was over the top. We should not resort to name calling in what should be a civilized debate. Rush Limbaugh, out of all people should know this. But if you listen to Rush, you know that he often resorts to name calling and labeling people he does not agree with. It is difficult for Congress to have a civilized debate about anything when the pundits are so uncivil.
But let's talk about contraception for a moment, but not about the moral aspects of it, but about the economic aspects of it. As we begin, think about that scene from "The Wedding Singer" where one of the main characters bought a new VCR for his fiance. It was $800.
Every product goes through normal life-cycle. There is an introduction phase, the growth phase, the maturity phase, the saturation phase and the decline phase.
In the introduction phase, there is usually only one company making the product. It is in short supply and very difficult to obtain and the price is very high. This is when your VCR cost $800.
In the growth phase, there may still be only one company making the product, but the company has stepped up production to meet the demand, and is using advertising and other marketing tools to increase the popularity of the product. The price is usually still high at this point. Your VCR at this point was $500.
In the maturity phase, the competition has had the time to reverse engineer the product. The company that has developed the initial product should have, by now, recovered their development costs. Now that there is competition, the price drops. More companies are manufacturing the product and that helps to meet the demand. The VCR at this point cost $350.
In the saturation phase, the price of the product, the demand and the number of companies manufacturing the product have stabilized. The price, at this point, should be affordable for most people. Manufacturing techniques improve and the price drops even more. At this point, you could get a VCR for around $150.
In the decline phase, the product is obsolete, being phased out and is dirt cheap. The last new VCR I saw cost $50.
"The pill" was approved by the FDA on June 10, 1957. If this product is not in the saturation phase by now, there is a real problem with the way that drugs are manufactured and marketed in the United States. If oral contraception is not affordable for most Americans without insurance, then we are all being ripped off.
This whole debate has morphed into a new religious conciseness debate, and it is completely unnecessary. There are other drugs that I can afford to pay for without filing a claim with my insurance company, why is "the pill" not among them?
Think about it. In the time that has passed since "the pill" was introduced, we have seen Tylenol, Prilosec and a host of other miracle drugs move to the saturation phase and become affordable. If these drugs have not become available over the counter, they have moved to the list of drugs that Wal-Mart and a host of other pharmacies offer for $4. There should be oral contraceptives on that list as well, and I believe that there may be some available at that price. If this product is so reasonably priced, why should I need insurance to cover it? Why is there a debate about it at all?
Possibly it is to provide some peace of mind and the illusion that people can be covered no matter what choice is made. Like any other product in the saturation phase, there are Cadillac brands and there are Hyundai brands. But why expect an insurance company to pay for it? If you want to pay for the Cadillac, is it not reasonable to pay for it out of your own pocket? Don't make the pharmacy and the claims adjuster bother with the paperwork and use $4 birth control as a reason to drive up the costs of other products.
This is one aspect of the health care debate that is missed. There are some health care options that most reasonable people can pay for with their own money. That should be encouraged. It will save insurance processing for more serious problems and claims that most reasonable people would have difficulty paying for.
Let's accept the fact that some of our medications can be paid for out of pocket, even by struggling law students, even "the pill". If we don't get off of this dangerous path, people will be expecting their auto insurance to pay for wiper blades and their home owners policy to cover smoke detector batteries.
If Rush Limbaugh were to take this angle, instead of the "free love" aspect of birth control, he would not have anyone to apologize to.
Should contraception be covered by insurance? By now, it should be so well priced that most people can afford it without involving their insurance company.
What Rush Limbaugh said about the Law Student who testified before the democrats in Congress was over the top. We should not resort to name calling in what should be a civilized debate. Rush Limbaugh, out of all people should know this. But if you listen to Rush, you know that he often resorts to name calling and labeling people he does not agree with. It is difficult for Congress to have a civilized debate about anything when the pundits are so uncivil.
But let's talk about contraception for a moment, but not about the moral aspects of it, but about the economic aspects of it. As we begin, think about that scene from "The Wedding Singer" where one of the main characters bought a new VCR for his fiance. It was $800.
Every product goes through normal life-cycle. There is an introduction phase, the growth phase, the maturity phase, the saturation phase and the decline phase.
In the introduction phase, there is usually only one company making the product. It is in short supply and very difficult to obtain and the price is very high. This is when your VCR cost $800.
In the growth phase, there may still be only one company making the product, but the company has stepped up production to meet the demand, and is using advertising and other marketing tools to increase the popularity of the product. The price is usually still high at this point. Your VCR at this point was $500.
In the maturity phase, the competition has had the time to reverse engineer the product. The company that has developed the initial product should have, by now, recovered their development costs. Now that there is competition, the price drops. More companies are manufacturing the product and that helps to meet the demand. The VCR at this point cost $350.
In the saturation phase, the price of the product, the demand and the number of companies manufacturing the product have stabilized. The price, at this point, should be affordable for most people. Manufacturing techniques improve and the price drops even more. At this point, you could get a VCR for around $150.
In the decline phase, the product is obsolete, being phased out and is dirt cheap. The last new VCR I saw cost $50.
"The pill" was approved by the FDA on June 10, 1957. If this product is not in the saturation phase by now, there is a real problem with the way that drugs are manufactured and marketed in the United States. If oral contraception is not affordable for most Americans without insurance, then we are all being ripped off.
This whole debate has morphed into a new religious conciseness debate, and it is completely unnecessary. There are other drugs that I can afford to pay for without filing a claim with my insurance company, why is "the pill" not among them?
Think about it. In the time that has passed since "the pill" was introduced, we have seen Tylenol, Prilosec and a host of other miracle drugs move to the saturation phase and become affordable. If these drugs have not become available over the counter, they have moved to the list of drugs that Wal-Mart and a host of other pharmacies offer for $4. There should be oral contraceptives on that list as well, and I believe that there may be some available at that price. If this product is so reasonably priced, why should I need insurance to cover it? Why is there a debate about it at all?
Possibly it is to provide some peace of mind and the illusion that people can be covered no matter what choice is made. Like any other product in the saturation phase, there are Cadillac brands and there are Hyundai brands. But why expect an insurance company to pay for it? If you want to pay for the Cadillac, is it not reasonable to pay for it out of your own pocket? Don't make the pharmacy and the claims adjuster bother with the paperwork and use $4 birth control as a reason to drive up the costs of other products.
This is one aspect of the health care debate that is missed. There are some health care options that most reasonable people can pay for with their own money. That should be encouraged. It will save insurance processing for more serious problems and claims that most reasonable people would have difficulty paying for.
Let's accept the fact that some of our medications can be paid for out of pocket, even by struggling law students, even "the pill". If we don't get off of this dangerous path, people will be expecting their auto insurance to pay for wiper blades and their home owners policy to cover smoke detector batteries.
If Rush Limbaugh were to take this angle, instead of the "free love" aspect of birth control, he would not have anyone to apologize to.
Should contraception be covered by insurance? By now, it should be so well priced that most people can afford it without involving their insurance company.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
