Very interesting observation from Sen.Lewis and we are pleasantly surprised of his deep political knowledge. Thank you for your comment.

Wait a second. "Can Mitt Romney win just enough delegates to be relevant to the new dynamic?" Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to CNN, Mitt Romney is leading in the delegate count: 30 to Huckabee's 21. This is to say nothing of future contests, but John Lewis seems to count Romney out as competitive only if he catches a lucky break. While that may be true for a "momentum" nomination paradigm, since Romney's early-state strategy has failed, Lewis speaks of a delegate-gathering race, in which he seems surprisingly unaware of the delegate count.

Flap trackback: http://flapsblog.com/?p=6257

Excuse me? Mitt Romney is leading in the number of delegates, thus, his early state strategy has not failed. To Lewis, your short-sighted commentary seems to have been written prior to the primaries.

Did John say Romney wasn't leading in delegates?

Romney's strategy was to win Iowa and New Hampshire. He did neither. That means his strategy failed. But it doesn't mean he can't or won't win the nomination.

Great analysis. Romney wanted to use the early primary wins to vault ahead of Guiliani. Ironically Rudy's almost complete bypass of the early states, opened the door up (IMO) for Huck and Mc. This also trimmed Romney's sails. While he's done well enough to be a leader in delegates, he hasn't done well enough to become the consensus favorite - something a seal of approval from Iowa and NH probably would have done.

I don't see Hucks campaign getting that far, too many problems with him for too many people.

I can't see any of the big three (McCain, Guiliani, or Romney) agreeing to be second fiddle (veep) for another. Huckabee is veepable, and most likely he'd lineup for McCain, who is marginally pro-life, equally feeble on immigration and economy. This would allow Huck to shore up at least a large part of his weakness, foreign policy and general executive incompetence. It would allow Huckabee to see a path to the presidency. McCain / Huckabee is a disaster in the general election, but it could win the convention.

In my best case scenario, Thompson becomes Romney's running mate, and Guliani is used somewhere in the administration either at state or at CIA. Both of those institutions resemble NYC pre-America's mayor. I'd put Duncan Hunter somewhere, with the intention of veeping him in 2012 (though not the promise.) Thompson's age would make a term two a lame duck candidacy like the current administration.

McCain could go back to the senate and focus on support and oversite of the war, and his new found hatred of pork. These would be admirable ways for an honorable man to serve his country. I'd consider him at defense, where he would let the general run things, do fine with his colleagues in congress, and have limited impact on his ability to screw up other areas. It would not be the feather in his cap he sought, but Sec Def is number two in the chain of command, and its a position he'd do well in. (A secdef who could fight wasteful congress pet projects would be great.)

The longer things stay close the more it helps Guliani (more so) and Romney. Guliani should start to gain some mojo (and cash) with super Tuesday wins, and a close field, means he can catchup or surpass in the delegate field. Romney has the best funds and a good organization so he can keep placing and grabbing delegates. It's not the front runner strategy, but instead the decathlon strategy.

If I had to guess right now, I'd say Guliani wins, mostly because McCain and Romney could both reasonably throw in with him (and go back to their previous jobs Senator and businessman) without compromising. Huckabee would be a sellout for McCain's defense posturing, and Romney can't support an economic populist who used Mormonism against Romney. Then Rudy adds Thompson as veep to shore up his general lack of legislative experience and the question marks in his conservative approach. Huckabee could go away.

He used the word "conservative" just once, in describing Thompson as a "likeable" one. I am conservative and identify with the Republican Party because it most closely adheres to conservative values, my values. For me, it is a toss-up between Giuliani and Romney. (Giuliani's social positions aren't to my liking, but I'll take him at his word that he will look for originalist judges for the courts.) But McCain is not conservative; neither is Huckabee. Neither can or will win in November. So if either is the nominee, I'll take a pass. (If they are the ticket, I will leave the GOP.) I live in California, so my presidential vote is meaningless, but if by some miracle McCain or Huckabee became president, I would not want to soil my good name by being the least bit responsible for his election. The prospect of Hillary or Obama as president provides a variation on an old joke: "Dad, what's a recession?" "That's what we had during the Carter administration." "Then what's a depression?" "That's when we remember how good we had it during the Carter administration."

Steve,

Well said. I do wish Thompson had done better and worked harder early, he'd have blocked Huckabee's candidacy (as the southern conservative) and if things didn't work out, he could have been relied on to do what's best for the country and party.

McCain/Huckabee - especially if there is public funding involved - will be an absolute disaster for the GOP. Recoverable? Yes. We'll learn our lesson and run against the proven incompetence of democrats in 2012. But it will be a high price paid for by the country.

Jon, CNN's count is wrong, because the Iowa vote allocated no delegates. It was simply a straw poll. Later straw polls at the county and district conventions will have more influence over which delegates are elected at Iowa's state convention in June. The decision made by the state convention delegates will certainly be influenced by the development of the race between now and June. For example, a "stop Huckabee" movement could convince supporters of all the other candidates to band together and back delegates supporting a preferred alternative to Huckabee.

At this point, you have 12 delegates elected in Wyoming (Romney 8, Thompson 3, Hunter 1) and 12 delegates allocated by the New Hampshire primary result (McCain 7, Romney 4, Huckabee 1). So if the convention were held today, the totals would be Romney 12, McCain 7, Thompson 3, Hunter 1, Huckabee 1. The New Hampshire delegates are bound to vote for the candidates selected by the primary, but the Wyoming delegates will be free to vote as they wish at the convention -- the Wyoming delegation should be considered pledged but not bound.

Keep in mind, too, that New Hampshire is a rarity -- allocating delegates proportionately to the result. Most Republican primaries will award delegates on a winner-take-all basis, typically by congressional district (three delegates each) and statewide (for the state's bonus delegates allocated by formula). A silver medal won't get you any points on the board. See thegreenpages.com for the gory details state-by-state.

being ahead in the delegates is pretty unimportant. 2% of the delegates have been committed. No one has a majority of them. While Romney may tout his lead, it is like saying you are leading in the first 100 yards of a marathon.

A fascinating review, and sound, but mistimed, analysis. The dealing better end well before July, perhaps before Memorial Day. Neither party can allow the other a free month or more of campaigning unopposed.

Delegate counts should be known by mid-March, perhaps April, and even considering unpledged/"super"/and general-party delegates, the relative strengths of the contenders remain unchanged.

The only benefit of a brokered or dealed convention would be an entirely new name as the compromise. The democrats would have severely pounded the remaining two or three contenders so badly as to be unrecoverable. The Feiler Faster theory, or "reset" button, might aide a new candidate, but the existing ones wouldn't have enough time to catch up.

I, too, believe Romney's strategy has not worked as he anticipated. I think he underestimated the MSM effect on Huckabee's success. Also, Huck's lack of money made him rely on "free air time". So his one extremely personal attack ad didn't cost him anything.
Mitt's ads, while actually pointing out the differences in their positions, only kept Huckabee's name on the minds of the voters and gave him credibility.
McCain's success in NH was due to Independents switching from Obama to McCain.
If Romney switches to the positive campaign that talks about all the things he has done, he will pull away with it in the long run.

The Romney cheerleaders on here are so shameless in their "spinning" of their candidate's disappointing performance so far.

How do you spend a combined total of $60 million just to get 2nd place in both Iowa and New Hampshire while the winners of those two contests were running on a shoestring budget.

If Romney cannot connect with those voters despite throwing in all that cash, he's not going to connect with the voters in Michigan, South Carolina, and so fourth...

If Duncan Hunter or Ron Paul comes in 2nd, it is a stunning victory, for Romney to come in 2nd, it is an embarrassing defeat.

Brendan said, "In my best case scenario, Thompson becomes Romney's running mate, and Guliani is used somewhere in the administration either at state or at CIA. Both of those institutions resemble NYC pre-America's mayor. I'd put Duncan Hunter somewhere...".

This is my dream scenario, with Hunter and Thompson's roles reversed for my second choice.

It's so sad that the Dems have to pay folks to post here slamming Romney. They know they wouldn't be able to beat him in the General Election, so they pretend to be Conservatives downplaying his impact. Sad, sad, sad.

Huckabee a force at the convention? That's a laugh. Aside from the very regionalness of his attraction, the guy has the solid ability to put his foot in his mouth up to the knee and a record as governor that should embarass any Republican.

Huck did OK in Iowa, a populist state with solid bible thumpin' credentials, but he got trashed in NH even *with* the boosterism of the MSM, which would love to see the GOP nominate a likeable but totally unelectable clown to be the designated loser for Hillary or Obama in the fall. (They'd also like a dignified elder statesman Bob Dole type to perform the same function of giving a noble and dignified concession speech this November, pledging to reach across the aisle and work with the new President, so keep that in mind McCainiacs.)

I can't imagine Huck will score any reasonable number of votes in big serious states like Florida, NY, Penna, California, NC, Texas, et cetera.