Can McCain still win?

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Last Thursday night on Fox's Hanity and Colmes program Karl Rove said that Huckabee must win 83% of the remaining delegates to win the GOP nomination, while McCain has to win only 40% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination. But as of 5:30 pm EST today McCain has won 40% or more of the primary vote/caucus delegates in only 9 of the 31 states that have already voted. His average vote/caucus delegate count is only 28.58% for the 31 states that have already voted.

Note: Shortly after my last post here I needed to do a systems restore on my computer. In the middle of the process I found that one of my restore disks was damaged so I was without computer access until I received a replacement disk today. I did not intentionally abandon any of the thread that I had been participating in.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 578 • Replies: 8

No top replies

I'd call it inevitable

0 Replies

hanno wrote:

I'd call it inevitable

I'm not sure if I have the math right, but since Romney only suspended his campaign, his delegates must still vote for him on the 1st ballot. So Huckabee and Paul need to win only something like 671 of the remaining 1233 delegates to deny McCain a 1st ballot nomination.

It takes 1191 delegates to win the GOP nomintion. Between them Huckabee, Romney and Paul already have 519 delegates. If Hucakbee could win just over 54% of the remaining 1233 delegates he would have around 888 delegates. Add in Romney's 286 delegates and Paul's 16 delegates and you have 1190 non-McCain delegates on the 1st ballot and McCain would not get a 1st ballot nomination.

0 Replies

flaja wrote:

If Hucakbee could win just over 54% of the remaining 1233 delegates he would have around 888 delegates.

"Just"?

Huckabee is a regional candidate. Outside the South, he has been stuck at 22% or less everywhere except Iowa and Kansas. Thats sixteen states across the country in which he failed to even get a quarter of the vote.

It's a two-man race now, and many states apply a winner-takes-all system. He's not going to win over half of the remaining delegates.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Huckabee is a regional candidate. Outside the South, he has been stuck at 22% or less everywhere except Iowa and Kansas. Thats sixteen states across the country in which he failed to even get a quarter of the vote.
Quote:

Iowa isn't in the South.

Kansas isn't in the South.

West Virginia isn't in the South (as far as Confederates are concerned).

Washington state, where Huckabee is only 2 percentage points behind McCain in the latest tally, isn't in the South.

Huckabee was 2nd in Alaska, which isn't in the South.

Huckabee was 2nd in Missouri, which is only marginally in the South.

Huckabee was 2nd in Oklahoma, which isn't in the South.

Huckabee isn't a regional candidate. Even in states up north where he came in 3rd, he still received 15-20% of the vote.

Quote:
It's a two-man race now, and many states apply a winner-takes-all system. He's not going to win over half of the remaining delegates.

So if Huckabee wins these states by a plurality of 1 vote, he wins all of the delegates.

0 Replies

flaja wrote:

Iowa isn't in the South.

Kansas isn't in the South.

Yep, like I said, "except Iowa and Kansas".

flaja wrote:

West Virginia isn't in the South (as far as Confederates are concerned). [..]

Huckabee was 2nd in Missouri, which is only marginally in the South.

Huckabee was 2nd in Oklahoma, which isn't in the South.

Well, I'm not American and not up to scratch about who considers what to be legitimately the South or not, but the US census data categorizes all three states as part of the South.

flaja wrote:

Huckabee was 2nd in Alaska, which isn't in the South.

I said that Huckabee "has been stuck at 22% or less" outside the South. 22% is what he got in Alaska. That Romney's victory in the state was large enough to make it possible for Huckabee to still come in second with just 22% is irrelevant. You dont win elections if you're gonna get stuck at 22%.

flaja wrote:

Huckabee isn't a regional candidate. Even in states up north where he came in 3rd, he still received 15-20% of the vote.

And how is that going to help him get 54% of the remaining delegates? Really, if that's the range he's stuck in outside the South and the odd Plains state, he's not going to get anywhere near.

Not to mention the fact that he was actually stuck in single digits in a bunch of states up north (New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine) as well as out West (Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming, Utah).

But yeah - you did get me on Washington State, the results of which were still being counted when I posted. That was definitely a surprise.

And hey - I'd be quite pleased with Huckabee as nominee - he'd be easier to beat, and trigger an identity crisis in the Republican Party bigger than anything McCain can cause.

0 Replies

Dream on. The GOP nominee will be.... drum roll.... John McCain.

McCain's independence and willingness to break ranks with the Party on occasional issues has not endeared him to Party regulars, especially the more ideologically driven. Some, like the commantator's Limbaugh and Coulter, appear to dislike the Senator from Arizona more than they object to the leftist policies of Clinton and Obama. Strange bedfellows. However, the Party leadership is already beginning to get behind the McCain campaign. It will take longer to convince staunch Republican voters that McCain isn't some sort of wolf in sheep's clothing. During the primary season, those voters who define conservatism by individual issues, can be expected to support alternatives to John McCain, a more moderate Republican who is running on proven character, capability and competence.

McCain might not get the nomination of the first ballot, but he will be the nominee by acclamation in the end. Romney's and Huckabee's delegates insure them an influential seat in negotiating the Party Platform, and strengthens their political positions for future office. Most of Romney's delegates will to McCain, and the Huckabee delegates will follow when divine intervention fails to occur. Many of the Party regulars who have expressed their dissatisfaction with McCain's independence and stand on some issues will support him during the general election. Some will be reluctant voters, others will recognize that the Democratic alternative is totally unacceptable to Republicans and moderates across the country.

Even so, McCain will need to continue working to reconcile disgruntled Party regulars. I expect that the Party Platform will be more conservative than McCain is personally, but it will help clearly highlight the differences between our Party and the Democrats. In November when voters step into the privacy of the voting booth, Republicans and moderates will choose John McCain over whichever of the Democratic candidates manages to prevail and vanquish the other.

Most Americans are moderates and are uncomfortable with extreme idealism where theoretical principles trumps lower risk incremental change and compromise. Extreme Idealism is the stick that the Democrats have been using to beat up on the Bush Administration and our Party for years. In the 2008 Presidential race, Democratic extremism will be a stark contrast to Republican moderation. The Democrats can be expected to run a campaign of socialistic promises designed to mollify their many contending and mutually antagonistic special interest groups and constituencies. The McCain campaign, I believe, should focus on contrasting his character, competence and capabilities (which are inconvertible, and beyond question), with weaknesses in those areas by the Democratic nominee. Moderate Democrats are far more likely to vote for an American hero who is both moderate and rather independent of partisan politics. I can't imagine that many of those who voted for either Romney or Huckabee will prefer to Obama or Clinton to McCain.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Yep, like I said, "except Iowa and Kansas".

What about West Virginia and Washington State and Alaska?

Quote:

Well, I'm not American and not up to scratch about who considers what to be legitimately the South or not,

To people who are southern born the South means the states that made up the Confederacy: Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia. But even in the 1860s the South wasn't a single uniform entity. Some people from Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland (each a slave state) contributed troops to the Confederate armies but these states did not secede from the Union. And all Confederate states except South Carolina likewise contributed troops to the U.S. army.

West Virginia was originally part of Virginia, but culturally the two were miles apart and West Virginia seceded from the Confederate State of Virginia and was re-admitted to the Union. People in my part of Florida had scheduled a meeting to launch a similar effort, but the U.S. army was diverted just before the meeting was to take place and confederate forces re-gained military control over the area. And then large parts of Tennessee were opposed to the Confederacy and due to their strong Union sentiment Tennessee was the only Confederate state that was not put under U.S. military occupation after the Rebellion.

After the Rebellion was crushed, many people from the southern states ended up in places like Oklahoma, but due to modern population trends I doubt that these places have many remaining similarities with the South. And at the same time a state like Florida is no longer a southern state sine so many Yankees have moved in. And Texas is as much a western state as a southern state.

Quote:

but the US census data categorizes all three states as part of the South.

Merely for demographic reasons. You may also hear terms like peripheral South and Deep South and these terms generally indicate the relative proportion of whites and blacks in the population.

Also note that Huckabee didn't win either Florida or South Carolina. He is not a regional candidate.

Quote:

I said that Huckabee "has been stuck at 22% or less" outside the South. 22% is what he got in Alaska.

Huckabee received 34% in Iowa, 33% in Oklahoma, 51.5% in West Virginia, 31.5% in Missouri and (at last count) 24% in Washington state. And even in 3rd place in Minnesota he got 20% while 3rd place in New York was still 17% and his 4th place showing in North Dakota gave him 20%.

Quote:

That Romney's victory in the state was large enough to make it possible for Huckabee to still come in second with just 22% is irrelevant. You dont win elections if you're gonna get stuck at 22%.

Most of the states that Romney won were caucuses. Many of the delegates that are now attributed to Romney are not yet officially chosen. The caucus delegates that are now for Romney could easily become Huckabee delegates at their respective state conventions which will choose delegates to the national convention.

Quote:

And how is that going to help him get 54% of the remaining delegates? Really, if that's the range he's stuck in outside the South and the odd Plains state, he's not going to get anywhere near.

This will depend on how the delegates are apportioned to the candidates. Some states give all of their delegates to whomever wins the most popular votes in the state as a whole. Other states assign delegates to each of their congressional districts and whoever wins the most popular votes in a CD will win that CD's delegates. Huckabee only won 60% of the total vote in Kansas, but because he won the most votes in each of the state's CDs he won almost 100% of the state's delegates. He could just as easily have won the same number of delegates by wining 51% in each CD or even an amount less than 51% if that amount is one vote more than the 2nd place finisher received.

Remember that in Missouri McCain won only 32.97% of the statewide vote, but because Missouri is winner-take-all McCain won 100% of Missouri's 58 delegates. Shifting 8546 of McCain's votes to Huckabee and Huckabee would be getting all 58 of Missouri's delegates.

Quote:

But yeah - you did get me on Washington State, the results of which were still being counted when I posted. That was definitely a surprise.

I didn't get the final tally, but about noon today Eastern Time, the Washington State Republican Party declared McCain the winner with something like 13% of the votes left to be counted.

Quote:

And hey - I'd be quite pleased with Huckabee as nominee - he'd be easier to beat, and trigger an identity crisis in the Republican Party bigger than anything McCain can cause.

I think you are dreaming.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

Some, like the commantator's Limbaugh and Coulter, appear to dislike the Senator from Arizona more than they object to the leftist policies of Clinton and Obama.

I don't know much about Coulter, but I don't see how Limbaugh can be representative of the conservative base. Between his draft-dodging, his 3 wives, his 3 divorces, his drug use and his disrespect for the law, Limbaugh is far removed from conservatism.

And just how is McCain-Feingold or McCain-Kennedy any different from what someone like Hillary would do?

Quote:

McCain might not get the nomination of the first ballot, but he will be the nominee by acclamation in the end.

My understanding of the GOP convention rules is that if McCain doesn't win on the 1st ballot his delegates are not obligated to support him on the 2nd. Huckabee or Romney may end up on the ticket as VP, but if the convention goes to a 2nd ballot, the convention could easily end up nominating someone who didn't even run for the nomination. Ever hear of the chant, "We want Wilkie"?

Quote:

Romney's and Huckabee's delegates insure them an influential seat in negotiating the Party Platform, and strengthens their political positions for future office.

The GOP doesn't have a good history of heir apparents. For example Richard Nixon was a candidate in 1966 even after being the GOP nominee in 1960. Bob Dole wasn't nominated in 1980 even though he was the GOP VP nominee in 1976. Dan Quayle was not even a candidate in 1996 even though he had been VP under George H. W. Bush. And Jack Kemp wasn't even a candidate in 2000 even after being the GOP VP nominee in 1996.

Quote:

Most of Romney's delegates will to McCain,

Why, considering that most would-be Romney voters seem to be going for Huckabee? Furthermore, most of Romney's delegates have not yet been officially chosen because the caucus-state convention process hasn't been completed for the caucus states that Romney won. They could easily end up being Huckabee delegates by the time they get to the convention.

Quote:

and the Huckabee delegates will follow when divine intervention fails to occur.

What makes you so sure of this?

Quote:

Many of the Party regulars who have expressed their dissatisfaction with McCain's independence and stand on some issues will support him during the general election. Some will be reluctant voters, others will recognize that the Democratic alternative is totally unacceptable to Republicans and moderates across the country.

More likely they will either vote 3rd party or just stay home as they did in 1992, 1998 and 2006. The GOP base is sick and tired of being taken for granted. I think they are long past the point of supporting the GOP nominee because they fear the Democrat alternative.

Quote:

Even so, McCain will need to continue working to reconcile disgruntled Party regulars. I expect that the Party Platform will be more conservative than McCain is personally, but it will help clearly highlight the differences between our Party and the Democrats.

What good does it do to have a platform that your nominee won't uphold if elected to office?

Quote:

In November when voters step into the privacy of the voting booth, Republicans and moderates will choose John McCain over whichever of the Democratic candidates manages to prevail and vanquish the other.

From what I hear tell Obama is just as likely to get a moderate's vote as McCain is. According to the media McCain's totals suffered in states where independents could vote in either party's primary/caucus because so many independents voted for Obama.

Quote:

Most Americans are moderates and are uncomfortable with extreme idealism where theoretical principles trumps lower risk incremental change and compromise.

Your documentation for this is what?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/general_current_events/24_are_both_fiscal_and_socially_conservatives_9_fiscally_and_socially_liberal

As of last November 41% of Americans claim to be conservatives on "fiscal issues such as taxes, government spending, and business regulation."

Only 43% claim to be moderate on these same issues.

37% are conservative on "social issues like abortion, public prayer, and church-state topics."

Only 30% say they are moderate on these same issues.

24% claim to be conservative on both fiscal and social issues while only 17% say they are moderates on both fiscal and social issues.

People who are social and fiscal conservatives make up the largest single segment of the U.S. population.

Quote:

In the 2008 Presidential race, Democratic extremism will be a stark contrast to Republican moderation. The Democrats can be expected to run a campaign of socialistic promises designed to mollify their many contending and mutually antagonistic special interest groups and constituencies.

The Democrats have been doing this at least since 1980. It isn't something new for 2008. And the only presidential elections in which the Democrat candidate has come out on top during this time was when a strong 3rd party candidate (Perot) was in the race and Republicans nominated a moderate for the presidency (George H. W. Bush in 1992 and Bob Dole in 1996). Nominate another moderate (McCain) and the GOP will have another loss.

0 Replies

Can McCain still win?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know