So......does this mean the Santorum campaign can stop having a hissy fit now?
More to the point, can the Michigan GOP PLEASE close their primary???

Why do feel so defensive that you have to make such broad generalizations about anyone you disagree with?

And, Santorum's campaign is the only one whining at present. The rest are campaigning. Deal. Or throw a hissy fit. Your pick.

The fix is in...

But its ok. As Tiberius said to Caligula, "You and Rome deserve each other!". And the same could be said about Romney and party hacks like Anuzis.

Of the original 59 delegates, 56 are allocated based on the primary results and 3 are uncommitted.

Don't worry, if we get to the convention, and Romney needs those votes, the RNC will find a way to make sure they become voting delegates.

I don't see any evidence that the RNC is intent on winning.

I do love your attitude that the rules must take a back seat to yourside winning.

I once thought that only liberals thought that way.

ROmney is going to lose by at least as big a margin as McCain did.

Anuzis and his ilk are a good part of the reason Michigan is stuck with two Democrat senators and struggles to hold onto Republican house seats. He is unable to direct the Michigan Republican Party in any open, reasonable manner, and unable to attract or develop viable national candidates. The only reason we have a Republican governor is that a business outsider managed to overcome the old line party hacks and convince enough people he would change the state for the better. Without Rick Snyder, we'd be stuck with Granholm Jr. (aka Virg Bernaro) and another four years of Dem incompetence in the state house.

It certainly can be read that way (and, indeed, it's the only way it makes sense if there were 3 or more candidates with 15%+ of the vote). But it's clear that not everyone read it that way.

Adding to the confusion was the Santorum camp claiming to the media that they tied Romney in delegates before the MI state GOP made its announcement. Maybe that was an innocent mistake, maybe it was a strategic decision to try to elevate their guy and make the loss sting less, or maybe they deliberately picked this fight to make Santorum look like the victim of the evil Republican establishment.

Actually Mike Cox, who was one of those 2 votes, basically said that the committee agreed on Feb 4 that the at-large delegates are WTA, but since memo didn't end up saying that, they should stick to what the memo said, since campaigns thought they were proportional. I think whether to stick to the actual decision or stick to the typo should depend on the nature of the typo. Now if the whole state had been proportional according to typo, but the actual decision was to make all 30 delegates WTA, then they should stick to to the typo, not to the actual decision, since turning at-large 30 delegate proportionate to 30 delegate WTA would have been unreasonable to the the campaign coming second, because of resources invested under assumption that it was proportional. However, Michigan was congressional district based first and foremost, 28 delegates, 2 per CD, so since the typo didn't matter that much, it is better to stick to the actual Feb 4 decision.

Really, that 2 delegates proportionate to people getting over 15%, was one the stupidest delegate allocations I had ever heard, that means that if the second candidate get's over 15%, the winner needs to get over twice as many votes to be able to claim more at-large delegates than the silver medalist.

Here is quote of article:
Credentials committee member Mike Cox voted against the change because he said the candidates went into Tuesday's election thinking the at-large delegates would be awarded proportionally, not on who won the popular vote.He agreed with Anuzis that the committee wanted to award both delegates to one candidate rather than awarding them proportionally, but said that isn't what the memo ended up saying.