GOP delegate count update
Mitt Romney has not only endorsed John McCain, but has formally asked his delegates to the Republican National Convention to throw their support behind McCain. Assuming they do so, this places John McCain's actual delegate count at 1,104 to Mike Huckabee's 243. (MSNBC)1,191 are needed to nominate.
Labels: Presidential Election
posted by Deacon David Oatney @ 1:39 PM
3 Comments:
David, the delegates are not bound to Romney, so they can't really be counted for MCCain. In Many states, Romney was allocated delegates, but they have yet to be elected. A prime example is Michigan, where Romney one. With Romney out, Michigan is sending 45 uncommitted delegates to the convention in place of Mitt's delegates, and most states should send uncommitted delegates.
Those who actually were committed to Romney and owed something to his campaign are more likely to support McCain, that's certainly not all of his delegates. The delegate count is mostly a projected count and in many of the Caucus States, it depends on how Romney's supporters (many of them true blue Conservatives are feeling) so regardless, you can't count them, it's too much in flux:
http://blog.mlive.com/kzgazette/2008/02/post_2.html
I also wrote a post on this at my blog:
http://www.adamsweb.us/blog/figuring-out-the-huckamath
David,
Something else to keep in mind is that Huckabee is still in the race. Between the two of them the now uncommitted delegates might decide that he's more conservative than McCain and that'd make for some interesting deal making.
Perhaps even a McCain/Cheney ticket?!?!? Or a McCain/Bush(Jeb) ticket?! Oh the horrors!!
Not that it'd matter all that much to McCain, I've come to believe that he'd say/do anything to further himself.
SteveMule
McCain permanently lost my vote when he voted against the bill that would have made waterboarding illegal. This vote came mere weeks after McCain scolded the other Republican candidates about how the Army field manual was working and how warterboarding was, unequivocally, torture.
The vote was clearly an attempt on his part to pander to conservatives -- or, more likely, people in the party further to the right of him. Regardless of who he was aiming for, though, it was clearly a pander vote.
If he can't be trusted to maintain "straight talk" on that issue, he can't be trusted ever.
Post a Comment
<< Home