Primary (And Secondary) Confusion - Part 3
Why Romney Might Drop Out But Edwards Probably Won't
So far, both are still in the picture, even though no one in the press is talking all that much about Edwards. Despite finishing second in both Iowa and New Hampshire, Romney is out in front of the GOP standings thanks to the win in Wyoming. It's hard to say right now what his chances are overall. While the DNC has chosen to distribute its delegates on a proportional representation basis (eg - if you get 20% of the vote you get 20% of the available delegates) the math on the Republican side is more complicated (not that the Democratic math is all that easy) as some states are winner-take-all while others take the proportional representation route. I'll leave it at that for now as I plan to get into all that in more detail in the days ahead. For now, let's just say it's messy.
In a previous post I mentioned that I thought Romney would have a hard time staying in the race if he lost Michigan along with Iowa and New Hampshire. Having been the presumptive nominee early on and having thus far outspent all other candidates by almost two-to-one or more (the exception being Giuliani, at $47.25 million to Romney's $62.83 million; figures as of 09/30/07) to have lost both races and then fail to get Michigan as well reflects badly on his campaign. He's not going to win any new support if he can't win any states. He's certainly not going to win people over with his rhetoric. And the move to rebrand himself as the candidate of change on the Republican side stinks of desperation. He's heavily funding his own campaign, and he can afford it, but if he doesn't get Michigan, it's going to make it all that much harder to win any votes and states later on.
That being said, I have yet to call Edwards as a lost cause, despite his having less money and less press than Romney. (Remember that less money bit the next time the guy at work starts spouting off about Edwards being some rich trial lawyer, as if the Republicans were all dirt farmers.) For an explanation, let's turn to the big board. In order to win the Democratic nomination, or the Republican nomination for that matter, you need a majority of the available delegates. Since the Democratic delegates are distributed on a proportional basis, Edwards can continue to take small chunks of the vote (20-30%) and still be a factor. If he manages to hold, just to pick a number, between one fifth to one third of the delegates, while Clinton and Obama continue to be even overall, then he's in a good place to make demands of the other candidates. The delegates for Edwards will throw their support behind whoever he supports, and if Clinton or Obama want to make that 2,025 delegates (50%+1) then they'll have to cut a deal with Edwards.
Any deal would likely demand that they include certain principles of his in their campaign platform. Edwards could ask for the VP slot, but I don't think he wants it. Then again, that's pure speculation on my part. If he can keep winning delegates he could be in a position to bargain come the convention. Personally, I'd like to see a brokered convention, but I'm a nerd like that. And I'd have to get CNN somehow. (Note to self: find a way to afford cable by November) Can't just sit there listening to NPR. I need colorful charts. Flashy logos. Balloons dammit! Short attention span to the max! That's what politics is all about. Pageantry.
Fundamentally, I think that's the difference. Edwards is running for the things he believes in, whereas the only thing Romney seems to believe is that he should be President. Even if he could maintain some kind of presence, delegate-wise, there's nothing he stands for (and if I were being really honest I would end this sentence there) that the other candidates don't also stand for. What's he going to do? Demand that the other candidates agree to tripple the size of Guantanamo instead of just doubling it? Cut taxes on the richest Americans by There's someting you can really make a stand on. I will not relent until my opponents agree to the 45% corporate tax cut, thus saving the economy, instead of their paltry 43% corporate tax cut which would doom us all to ruin! Yeah. I can't see it either.
Holy Mitt!
For those of you out there who aren't already aware of it, Mitt Romney made much his $250 million (net worth including his wife's assets) through leveraged buyouts. Works like this: You find a bunch of guys, usually friends of your parents, but possibly former business associates, with more money than God and get them to loan you a small pile using the assets of the company to be bought out as collateral. You then use that to buy a controlling stake in the company. To pay off the debt from the loans, you cut wages and benefits, lay off workers, and sell off company assets. Nice huh? "Sometimes the medicine is a little bitter but it is necessary to save the life of the patient," the New York Times quotes Romney as saying. "My job was to try and make the enterprise successful, and in my view the best security a family can have is that the business they work for is strong." Apparently that security comes after they've survived the first round of layoffs, or after they've reapplied for their own job at reduced wages, or perhaps after they've lost their health insurance. But after all that, they can rest assured that even though they might go bankrupt, find themselves unable to pay the bills, or face foreclosure, the company won't.
Just a reminder of what Mitt Romney means when he offers you "change."