Ron Paul

Like it Or Not, Romney Will Be On Track to Win the GOP Nomination After Super Tuesday


The MSM will try and keep audience interest in the Republican horserace alive – and its ratings up -- by spinning a post-Super Tuesday narrative of it "ain't over yet." Headlines like the one in yesterday's Detroit Free Press "Super Tuesday stakes are high—but the battle is far from over"—will remain typical.

Don't believe it. Unless the polls are totally flubbing it, the outcome will be clear tomorrow. And, like it or not, Mitt Romney will be the nominee.

His unexpected and resounding weekend victory in Washington (a state where Ron Paul had hoped to stage his first primary win), coming on the heels of wins in Arizona and Michigan, has given him a clear path to the nomination. What's more, after tomorrow, he will definitely have Massachusetts, Vermont and of course Virginia – a state where Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are not even on the ballot – in the bag. He is also likely to win Idaho, which has a heavy Mormon presence. He might lose the popular vote in Ohio, although, right now, the RCP average is giving him a very slight edge, a remarkable turnaround given that Santorum was several points ahead just two days ago. But he'll win the delegate race regardless because, thanks to Santorum's organizational incompetence, Santorum is not even on the ballot in nine Congressional districts, automatically disqualifying him from nearly a third of the state's 66 delegates. All of this adds up to five of the 10 Super Tuesday contests going for Romney tomorrow.

What's more, some polls show he's pulling ahead of Santorum in Tennessee, meaning that right now the only sure-shot win for Santorum is Oklahoma and for Newt Gingrich, Georgia, his "home" state. Incidentally, instead of resenting Gingrich's Super Pac backer Sheldon Aldensen for keeping Gingrich alive, Romney should thank him. That's because Gingrich's presence in the race pulls votes away from Santorum who otherwise would certainly have won most of Georgia's 76 delegates, the highest of any state, gaining much more staying power.

Despite all this, Romney does not have a sure-shot majority as of now. He needs 1,144 delegates to finally win the nomination, but many of the remaining primaries are in the winner-take-all Southern states, as opposed to the proportional primaries that are being held tomorrow. Indeed, only 437 delegates -- or about a quarter of the 2,286 total – will be in play tomorrow. About 67 percent of the delegates will remain on the table. And so Santorum and Gingrich could stay in the race in an attempt to deny Romney a majority, leading to a brokered convention whose prospects some in the media keep pounding.

But the problem is that neither one of them has a prayer of winning a majority themselves. Gingrich will have to raise funding to play the spoiler at the convention, not a winning pitch for too many donors. Therefore, even if he makes a decent showing in states other than Georgia tomorrow, his funding will likely dry up, forcing him to drop out. Meanwhile, Santorum, who, among other weaknesses, does not have an organizational structure on the ground to capitalize on his popularity with the GOP electorate, will sooner or later have to succumb to pressure from party elders -- not to mention a nice offer of a spot in the Romney administration. Bear in mind that Santorum's day job right now is at something called the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington D.C.!

Ron Paul of course is in it for the long haul, trying to gather as many delegates as he can before the convention. But given that the prospects of a brokered convention are remote, the question is to what end? (Not that Paul would have had any interest in playing kingmaker if there were a brokered convention. Engaging in the kind of political horsetrading that other politicians do would potentially destroy his credibility with a movement he has so painstakingly built.) Gingrich and Santorum are enough of a presence in the Republican Party to be guaranteed very respectable treatment at the convention in June. Paul, I think, is trying to gather delegates to gain similar respect. But will he? Or will be be treated like the GOP's stepchild as he always has been?

To get an answer to that question, read the opinion section of The Daily tomorrow – or watch this space for a link.

NEXT: Congressman Mocks DEA Agent for Claiming Medical Marijuana Is Dangerous Because It Causes Water Damage

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Oh my God! It won't be Ron Paul then?
    Where is the Nazi vote?

    1. Despite the fact that his head isn't screwed on right most of the time, I'd much prefer Paul to Romney. Romney sucks, and the GOP blew it.

      1. blew it how? By not electing the fire-breather of the week? Please. At least the folks in the race deserve credit for actually running, unlike the Palin/Daniels/Christie/whoever-else types who sat out for one reason or another.

        The conservatives don't like the Mormon; oh, they won't say so publicly but will let Franklin Graham and Perry's preacher or Huckabee do it for them. But they put up a parade of has-beens, never-wases, self-righteous moralists, and buffoons who wasted time on gay marriage, bombing Iran, and contraception, among other issues that absolutely no dinner conversation entails.

        1. ...wasted time on gay marriage, bombing Iran, and contraception, among other issues that absolutely no dinner conversation entails.

          Blame some of that on the debate questioners.

          1. I saw Santorum on Fox News Sunday and Chris Wallace asked him about the Blunt Amendment trying to overturn Obama's contraceptive coverage mandate. The premise of Wallace's questions was that GOP was wasting time on a social issue. Santorum countered about a larger principle being at stake about the President's presumed authority to dictate such things to all employers. Wallace seemed geniunely befuddled at the notion that a completely secular employer should have the right to not offer contraceptive coverage if it so decided.

        2. They blew it by not enticing someone with something to offer HitnRunbuplicans like us.

        3. They blew it by not enticing someone with something to offer HitnRunbuplicans like us.

      2. Romney sucks, and the GOPUSA blew it.


  2. Like it or not, everyone already knew this.

  3. "And, like it or not, Mitt Romney will be the nominee."

    Speaking as a Libertarian, I like it. Keep nominating these big government conservatives, GOP.

  4. Mitt Romney will be the nominee.

    It's inevitable.

  5. President Romney. Who would've thunk it? Still can't get over how weak the field was this time around, especially considering that the GOP candidate will be running practically uncontested in the general.

    1. If Romney gets the nomination, it's for mo' for O.

      1. *four* mo' for O, dammit!

        1. No way. The economy kills Obama. Romney is basically white, Mormon Obama with a little more political experience, but he hasn't been the one bullshitting us while the government continues to rape the economy, so he'll get the nod.

          1. I think it'll come down to the devil you know. Giving Obama another term will be a huge disaster given that he's pandering to special interests even before re-election. After he gets re-elected he'll go completely off his nut and we'll pay for it. That being said I think Romney could be even worse. There's a reasonable chance that there will be a Republican majority in both the House and Senate. Putting Romney in the executive as well is a scary thought. I think if it comes to that America will vote for gridlock.

            1. It's looking like bad news, anyway you slice it. Romney might be better for court appointments; otherwise, his state love will hurt plenty. Maybe not as much as Obama, but maybe as bad, given the likely GOP control of both houses, if the new Congress is willing to continue the nonsense.

              The really important issue now is Congress. Assuming it does go GOP, will it be with large majorities? What kind of people will the newbies be? Dedicated reformers, or more status quo bullshit?

              1. wrong. If romney wins, when the economy crashes due to overindebtedness, the libruls will say, look, we tried it your way. And we will have 150 years of socialism. From now on, unless we get a Ron Paul that warns america that even if s/he's elected there will be a period of pain, I want socialists elected all the way.

                1. The liberals are going to say that anyway. They're trying to blame the economy on Republican Obstructionism, for fuck's sake!

                  When things fall apart it's highly unlikely that libertarians are the ones chosen to pick up the pieces; that NEVER happens without outside influences (as in Russia in 1992). Chaos almost always leads to strongmen. So our only chance is to try to keep things from falling apart.

                2. If romney wins, when the economy crashes due to overindebtedness, the libruls will say, look, we tried it your way. And we will have 150 years of socialism.

                  I doubt that. The "social democratic"/"Blue Model"/entitlement state is done for. It is economically unsustainable, worldwide, and it is running up against its expiration date, fiscally, now.

                  I don't know what will come after the fiscal collapse fundamentally resets our relationship with government, but it won't be squishy-lefty socialism, I'm pretty sure of that.

                3. I am starting to see things that way,I don't expect living through the crash is going to be pleasant but if the parties most responsible are behind the wheel the when it happens then Boobus Americanus has a slightly better chance of grasping the subtleties of cause and effect. There is no chance whatsoever of 150 more years of Socialism or even a tenth of that being possible at this point, the compound interest graph on the debt will go vertical and the last great Keynesian experiment will be decisively tossed into the rubbish bin of history right next to the remains of our once staggering wealth. Ignoring the laws of economics, in the long run, is no different than attempting to ignore the laws of gravity and inertia.

            2. Voting for gridlock is a dangerous thing, because often it doesn't work.

              It's by no means a given that the GOP takes the Senate or even holds on to the House. All you gridlock voters could easily be handing the Dems another two years of absolute control.

              1. I'm not voting for gridlock. I'm also not voting for Romney.

              2. I'm not voting for gridlock either. I'd probably vote for Paul if he somehow got nominated but the most likely scenario is I'll vote for Johnson.

                1. That's where I'm at. I don't think there's any way Paul gets the nomination now, barring a Super Tuesday miracle. And that's extremely unlikely now.

              3. Voting for gridlock is a dangerous thing, because often it doesn't work.

                In my experience, voting for anything never works at all. As hard as I vote, what I want to happen never happens.

          2. No way. The economy kills Obama.

            This is not going to happen. Obama will plead GOP miserliness is hamstringing the economy (spend, spend, spend) along with those sneaky Yellow Devils in China who are undercutting the honest, God-fearing American workers, and his loyal followers will eat that shit up like like lobster tails.

            1. Yes, some people will. Not enough.

            2. Truth. Obama got elected to fix the already broken economy. All we see in the news is how good the economy is doing right now and it's an easy win for him. The GOP can say all then numbers are fake as much as they want, but until all the financial sites start banging that drum, no one is going to believe it.

    2. It's a long time to November. I'm not making any guesses at this point.

  6. Time for Ron Paul supporters to start putting their contributions in a piggy bank to fund Gary Johnson as the clear Libertarian alternative once he secures the LP nomination in May.

    1. I second this.

      1. I will be lodging a protest vote of "Ron Paul". I don't even want gary as president. The economy crashes in 2013-2015 no matter who is elected; I don't want the blame to fall on "free markets".

        1. It will be no matter what. Just like the most recent downturn is blamed on the capitalism and deregulation of the Bush years.

          1. I still believe in the great hope of a "great explainer" who can really explain that the poor keep getting poorer because the gov't steals it from them via inflation and encouraging debt. Paul (and most libertarians) still doesn't know how to make Austrian economics appeal to a liberal (he's getting better at liberalese on the drugs and war issues).

            Plus there's all that race stuff.

          2. Pro Libertate - You meant to say the "capitalism" and "deregulation" of the Bush years,right?

    2. unfortunately, my opinion at this time is that the Paulbots are too monomaniacal about their support for RP to think they are going to countenance your suggestion.

      I hope I am wrong.

      1. I'll be voting Johnson, looks like. I sent him money at the beginning of all of this.

        1. well, thats good. As I said, my experience with a lot of the Paulbots is they can't even consider the possibility that RP might not win they GOP nomination.

          What makes them incredible supporters of RP makes them difficult to convert.

          1. I still wonder whether Johnson might've had some outside chance if he'd stuck in the race. He's got the stuff people like about Paul to some extent, but isn't as firm on foreign policy as Paul (which seems to be what killed him). Many Republicans--maybe most--seem to have been looking high and low for a Romney alternative.

            1. I agree that most republicans are looking for a Romney alternative. Unfortunately, they are looking for a big government conservative alternative.

            2. He's pro choice, pro gay marriage, and much more adamant about drug legalization. He would have been screwed.

            3. Back in the summer/fall someone on here pretty much unchecked Johnson as a viable presidential candidate because he "Sounds Faggy". That type of shallow assessment of a candidate is the same reason we have not seen bald, fat, ruddy-looking candidates get anywhere in the past 40-50 years. McCain is the closest I can think of but 1) He fucking sucks and 2) His appearance can be blamed on age and his time as POW more than the general genetics most of these shallow dumbass voters would cling to.

              So to extrapolate, you can't be a presidential candidate if:
              1) You sound "Faggy" (whatever the fuck that means outside of the blatant John Waters stereotypes which Johnson does not remind me of at all)

              1. 2) You are too old (The end-of-the-line excuse for weak pussies beaten down by enough arguments regarding Paul not to consider him. Moreover, They fear what would replace the old, potentially soon-to-be-dead sitting president.)
                3) You are fat (Similar to the Too old argument, and one reason Christie would have been eviscerated this cycle. Most people don't like fat people, especially most shallow fucks who think they are voting for the next person to fondle their nether-regions and not a president)
                4) You are ugly all-around (John Kerry is the first one that comes to mind, and although he was terrible in almost every way from a Libertarian standpoint, the [ANECDOTE WARNING] number one excuse most of the women I knew didn't vote for him was because Bush was more physically attractive. No policy concerns. No fear of terrorism. Nothing. Just shallow fucking cosmopolitan bullshit).

                1. On top of this, WHAT'S WITH THIS CHARACTER LIMIT BS?

                  1. Website commentary security theater.

                    The terrorists have won.

                2. Voting solely based on something stupid like looks seems like the opposite of cosmopolitan. How did knowing about the different ways people do things become a bad thing again?

                  1. I was referencing the magazine/Vegas casino "definition" of cosmopolitan more than anything else.

              2. Your chart says your shit's all retarded and you talk like a fag.

    3. So now that Ron Paul has no chance of winning, we must switch our support to... the LP?

      If this is an attempt at "strategic thinking"...there's a problem you may not have noticed.

      1. How about switch our support to... the only candidate on the ballot with a proven track record of doing what needs to be done?

        1. His track record is irrelevant since he's not going to win. You might as well support Kerry Howley.

          1. I'm not voting lesser of two evils to further perpetuate the fraud. I might've voted GOP if they had someone decent as a nominee--there were a few possibilities other than Paul, but they aren't in the race.

            1. I guess my point is, why fund Johnson's campaign that has no chance of winning, and will almost certainly be even more invisible than RP's in the media? You're better off taking that money and giving it to Institute for Justice or one of the other libertarian orgs that are actually doing something to roll back statism.

              1. It's a multi-front war.

          2. I've never bought this line and I never will. I don't expect to be talking about President Johnson next year but dismantling the two party system is important and it can start here. Johnson has polled at 9% against Obama and Romney when his name is included as an option. Once the general election mud-slinging gets into full gear I think that could get to 15%, which gets the LP matching election funds. That's worth doing.

            1. It's frustrating that the LP isn't a better organization, because if it were, it could do some serious good.

  7. resounding weekend victory

    Want to quantify that? He got less than 1/2 the projected delegates according to

    1. Indeed. Until he starts winning states with more than 50%, he's done absolutely nothing "resounding".

      1. 50%?! How about 40?

        1. He's won four states with percentages between 40-50. His other four wins were in the 38-39 range. So he's pretty close to 40 now in a lot of places. Still not a majority though.

    2. The "sportscasters" that care about the horse race have no interest in the actual delegate count.

      1. Yeah, the fact that Michigan, Iowa and some other place I am forgetting were ties by any meaningful measure is completely ignored in the reporting.

  8. Engaging in the kind of political horsetrading that other politicians do would potentially destroy his credibility with a movement he has so painstakingly built.

    Since he said this is his last race, the only credibility at stake is Rand Paul's were Ron Paul to get involved in horsetrading. And I don't think people support RP because he's anti-horsetrading, they support him because he's economically conservative; if anything people begrudgingly accept that politics = horsetrading so libertarians need to start learning how.

    1. Very true, but a lot of the Paul supporters are not that pragmatic. They're in it not only for the particulars of Paul's philosophy but for its idealistic nature.

      1. you overestimate the pauls. I think you are right about what will actually happen, but you are also wrong about the pauls as individuals being completely idealistic and not pragmatic at all.

      2. Then they're pretty politically useless in the long run.

  9. No, this is a bunch of nonsense. If Romney loses in Ohio and Georgia, the two biggest prize, his path is not at all clear. I'm holding hope that voters might still somehow flip him the bird in Virginia. Paul could pull an upset in Vermont or Idaho, or at least pull strong seconds again. Tennessee isn't a sure thing for Romney at all. North Dakota will probably be good state for Paul as well, and if Santorum holds up on his midwest performance, I don't see Romney winning there either.

    Besides all of that, everything is proportional, not winner take all, so there's no reason to think all the states are going to fall in line as they have in the past. Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul have got to realize that between them, they still pull more than 50% of the votes. That's enough to stop Romney from getting enough delegates.

    1. Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul have got to realize that between them, they still pull more than 50% of the votes.
      while this may be true mathematically, please explain why the latter would give a rat's ass about people who want his line of thinking exterminated from the GOP and/or call him dangerous, among other things?

      I think Paul seems Romney as the least dangerous of the other three, and MR's also the only one not insulting him. Supporting either Ricky or Noot serves Paul no purpose.

      1. I think that's one reason Romney will win in the general--he's viewed as "mostly harmless."

        1. Romney, the new Earth?

      2. No, my point is if they prevent Romney from getting a clear delegate win before the convention, they will all have strong negotiating positions for getting concessions in exchange for support. For Gingrich and Santorum, this would probably be a VP nod, and for Paul, a platform plank.

        1. I seriously doubt Gingrich wants VP. Santorum maybe.

          1. Gingrich wants VP just in case Romney has an "accident" after the election.

          2. The most evil things delegates could do to anybody would be to stick them on a ticket with Gingrich. Gingrich is doing this entirely out of grudge and ego.

            1. And to sell books and collect honoraria, of course.

      3. They'll have more respect for him if they need his delegates.

    2. The fact that it's proportional helps the frontrunner, actually. A point that many of the Reason writers seem not to have realized.

      The trailing candidates need to catch up. To do that they need to get big chunks of delegates without Romney getting any...which means they need to win in winner-take-all contests. Santorum squeaking out a win in Ohio would be academic because he probably winds up with one more delegate than Romney in that scenario. Doesn't help him catch up.

      As for the brokered convention possiblity, Gingrich and Santorum and Paul hate each other. No friggin way they unite against Romney in a way that allows one of them to be the nominee. So the likely result of Romney failing to get a majority of delegates is that some concession is made at the convention so that one of the three releases his delegates and endorses Romney.

      1. I disagree. Not having winner take all makes it more difficult for the leader to wrap things up. Look at how long it took for Clinton and Obama to finish compared to McCain in 2008. There is still the chance for momentum to change again, especially if someone can unite the not-Romney vote. Romney is still getting about a third of the vote, tops. Plus, Santorum and Gingrich are each probably hoping the other will drop out and endorse him. That would easily be enough to beat Romney in the long haul. I don't think they hate each other at all. The only hateful pairings I see are Romney/Gingrich and Santorum/Paul.

        1. Clinton and Obama were neck and neck in delegates throughout the primary season, so that was a very different dynamic. Romney is way ahead of Santorum in delegates and indeed has a majority of the delegates so far awarded, not just a plurality. He just needs to run out the clock, and proportional delegates are like a prevent defense.

          Plus CA is coming up, winner take all with a ton of delegates and heavily favors Romney.

          1. Plus CA is coming up, winner take all with a ton of delegates and heavily favors Romney.

            CA is one of the very last states to vote, way off in June. It's also winner take all statewide (10 delegates) and by district (159 delegates, 3 per district), so the delegates will still get split up every which way unless Romney wins every district.

      2. It doesn't really matter who the candidates hate, only who their delegates do. Gingrich hates everybody, but I don't think his delegates give a rat's ass who he hates.

        Paul and Santorum delegates I'm not sure about. Delegates for Paul may not really be interested in anybody else, but if they're asked to choose...who knows? Delegates for Santorum I don't know about, but given that Santorum hasn't had a nationwide following like Paul, I suspect they'd be easier to shake loose. I think a lot of them were just looking to nominate an alternative to Romney.

  10. Part of me wants to see a brokered convention just to see what happens. I mean, we're not going to like the results regardless, so why not have some old-fashioned convention drama to keep it entertaining?

    1. This is all that matters.

    2. That's about my thinking on it. If they are going to all of the trouble and expense of having a convention, they might as well do something with it.

    3. A good time for popcorn.

  11. Republican primary voters are bandwagoning lemming jackoffs. If it somehow appears that after sooper dooper Tuesday that Gingrich is bringing the heat and santorum is all slopped out, they could easily potentially jump behind Newkular Titties once again.

    If Frothy loses both TN and OH, it really would be time for his pillow-biting ass to drop out. Most of the deluded dumbass Rs and theocons currently supporting him would migrate to Gingrich, and a few to both Paul and Flopney.

  12. Not that Paul would have had any interest in playing kingmaker if there were a brokered convention. Engaging in the kind of political horsetrading that other politicians do would potentially destroy his credibility with a movement he has so painstakingly built.

    This doesn't make sense to me. While Paul's consistency is a huge selling point, there's nothing wrong with him making demands to the GOP, even if he can't pass his whole agenda. We need someone willing to play politics eventually, otherwise libertarians will be forever relegated to the "principled opposition." That doesn't mean he should sell out, but if he hass to hold the whole convention hostage, then I don't see anything wrong with that. Unless maybe he's hoping Rand will be that person, the one who knows how to survive in DC.

  13. The votes don't matter that much. the delegate selection process in most states is so cumbersome that the public vote is just for show. If the convention does get brokered, Paul could win it all with his strategy.

  14. Way to go, GOP! You found the one candidate who promises to increase spending over Obama levels!

    Gingrich and Santorum are liars but at least they didn't promise to increase federal expenditures.

    1. Well, maybe... but both Obama and Romney say they are fiscally responsible and will make the tough choices to reign in spending. And that's what really counts.

      Because ya know, "There are those who say we can continue to increase spending indefinitely..." And you can't let "those who would say something" like that win. So vote for more government redistribution and corporatism. It is the fiscally responsible approach.

    2. You found the one candidate who promises to increase spending over Obama levels!


      And if you come back and say you were talking about only defense and medicare spending, I'm giving your online persona a virtual wedgie.

      1. This is interesting. If Romney could really follow through on getting the budget capped at 20% of GDP, that would be a historic achievement, enough to win my support for re-election. In fact, considering that spending is about 25% of GDP right now, he'd have to do some pretty huge, Paulesque cutting. Of course, he's totally vague about how he would actually do this, which is a serious problem for taking him seriously.

        1. Or maybe it's a serious reason to take him seriously, because not telling voters who he's going to stab in the back after the election is the way to get elected and stab them in the back.

    3. If you actually believe Santorum or Gingrich would not increase spending, I have a LOT of bridges to sell you.

      Please tell me you are not this ignorant. NONE of the GOP choices will decrease any spending. When was the last time you saw a fiscal conservative in the white house? Not Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2.

      The person who had the least percentage of spending increase? Freaking Clinton.

      Neither party are the droids you are looking for.

  15. As much as I don't like Romney, Santorum's rise has scared the shit out of me. What if he actually won? Worse, what if he won with a Republican congress?

    I will continue to support Paul for now, but if it comes down to it, I'll take Romney over Santorum any day.

    1. Yup, Santorum's apparent reason for being on this earth is to make Romney not looks so bad.

  16. Well, this wasn't really in doubt, was it? I just wish Ron Paul had been able to win a few states. I really don't understand why he didn't. Romney isn't much different than Obama. The others are just too flawed.

    I voted for Obama last time, but I will be voting Ron Paul as a write-in or for Gary Johnson, if he wins the Libertarian Party nomination.

    1. The only nice thing out of this is that I'll get to vote for both Paul (in the primary) and Johnson (in the general).

      1. I'm planning on voting for Paul in the primary. I like Gary except for his pro-choice-ish position. Still not sure if I'll be writing in Paul or voting for Johnson.

  17. On a more positive note, it could had been worse, it could had been Rick Santorum. 😉

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.