The Institute of 2012 GOP nomination Intrade rankings

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Romny has no path to the nomination...short him

Romney's path to the nomination, in order of the early primary dates:

lose IA
win NH
win NV while losing SC
win FL
lose GA
win ME
win NJ, MN, and ND while losing MO
win WA?
win NV
win WI?
win MI while losing AZ
Super Tuesday: win MA, VA, VT, CO, ID; lose OK, TN, TX

That's 14-16 out of 24 at that point. Then Romney would just have to keep his momentum steady through the six primaries that are later in March until he sweeps all the April primaries (DC, MD, CT, DE, NY, PA, RI). And if there's still a fight even then, he just has to coast until he wins California in June and mathematically locks up the nomination.

Not saying this will happen, of course- but it's a viable path to nomination for him.

Romney is far more likely to win AZ then either WI or VA. And you have NV listed twice. Your overall point still stands though.

Plus the GOP is using various forms of proportional delegate allocation. Most are like what CA did in 2008. The bulk of the delegates awarded by CD with a few awarded to the statewide winner. This could help Romney, especially if he wins by a wide enough margin to get every district in his best states, while being able to steal certain CD's in Perry states (NOVA, Metro St. Louis, Nashville). In 2008, CA went to McCain by 8 or 9, but that was enough to give him all but one district and the statewide delegates of course. So you don't need a 30 point win to do that.

The six or seven that are using WTA are mostly Romney states. CT, UT, possibly NJ, etc. I think DE and DC are as well. Only I think MT is an uncertain WTA state, and its late this time.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The problem, jmfcst, is not that you abandoned Perry. The problem is that while you were supporting him, you did so to such a point as to almost completely preclude yourself the ability of later abandoning him, and still remain credible regarding your next choice(s). You were on the verge of selecting him as nominee on Sept 1st. Now just imagine for a second what a disaster that would have made 2012. If there was a ever a year Republicans should be annoyingly picky to the candidates and completely thorough in selecting the candidate, it was this year. Throwing onself at the feet of any "savior/knight in shining armor" is a good way to end up with a dud facing Obama next fall. 

You state that you are representative of the Republican base, and that may well be so. However, with the erratic nature of your selections, I find it hard not to be troubled by the thought of it being the case. It reminds me far too much of the bandwagon effect which was Obama's candidacy.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You state that you are representative of the Republican base, and that may well be so. However, with the erratic nature of your selections, I find it hard not to be troubled by the thought of it being the case. It reminds me far too much of the bandwagon effect which was Obama's candidacy.

my support has reflected the base...if you don't think so then give me an example.

I tend not to deal in absolutes on things that something tells me not to assert as something when I don't have the ability to say one way or the other. So "may well be so" is the most you will ever get from me on that score.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The problem, jmfcst, is not that you abandoned Perry. The problem is that while you were supporting him, you did so to such a point as to almost completely preclude yourself the ability of later abandoning him, and still remain credible regarding your next choice(s). You were on the verge of selecting him as nominee on Sept 1st. Now just imagine for a second what a disaster that would have made 2012. If there was a ever a year Republicans should be annoyingly picky to the candidates and completely thorough in selecting the candidate, it was this year. Throwing onself at the feet of any "savior/knight in shining armor" is a good way to end up with a dud facing Obama next fall.

dude, I said he was worthless from the beginning, and I stated I was only supporting him because the jmfcst's would own him....so stop trying to sell me as a Perry fanboy...I'm going to support someone I agree with, and if I can't find that person, then I'll support someone whom I will own.   got it?

That is the answer to a question of "Why did you support him", when the issue deals more with "How" and "When". My question is, would it not have been more advisable to hold back somewhat until the debates? You did say, "he was invisible as Governor". Wouldn't knowing such tend to bring on bit of caution amongst the jmfcst's of the world?

And getting back to the answer you did give, it sounds like the critieria for "settling" for a candidate towards the end of the process, which seems out of place in August and September of the previous year.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

That is the answer to a question of "Why did you support him", when the issue deals more with "How" and "When". My question is, would it not have been more advisable to hold back somewhat until the debates? You did say, "he was invisible as Governor". Wouldn't knowing such tend to bring on bit of caution amongst the jmfcst's of the world?

And getting back to the answer you did give, it sounds like the critieria for "settling" for a candidate towards the end of the process, which seems out of place in August and September of the previous year.

Remind me again what the harm was in taking Perry for a spin?...It was basically, "Ok, you've got a good resume, and I understand you've pledged to be a social and fiscal conservative...so, well make you are nominee if you can carry on a conversation…what’s that?  You can’t talk?...Next!  What?  We’re out of viable conservative candidates who have political experience?  Who is left?  A business man?  Then send in the business man.  He can speak clearly, actually says something when he speaks, has a good biography, and seems to be a true believer.  If he can tone it down a bit and keep speaking from the heart, then it looks like he’ll be the nominee."

So, again, what was the problem in seeing if Perry had what it took?  What, exactly, is the problem you’re attempting to solve?  Are you saying I should settle for Romney who only gives speeches full of slogans and empty words and who has NO IDEA what he would do if voted POTUS?  Or, are you complaining how quickly we gave up on Bachmann and Perry?  Should we have given Bachmann and Perry an extra two months?  You may think the process is erratic, but the GOP base is simply being systematic in its interview process. 

It seems to me, Herman Cain has caused many blue avatars to blow a gasket and veer towards the hackish side of thought.

The issue isn't about taking a candidate for a spin. The problem is that the way you test drive candidates amounts signing the intial paperwork in my opinion.

The thoroughness is a great thing and I want it to continue as long as possible. The thoroughness isn't what I find eratic. I find eratic the level of support given as part of the "test drive", in your particular case. 

I am not saying anything about any particular candidate here.