A couple of delayed thoughts on today’s conference call with Romney…

1) He wouldn’t specify which states he’s aiming to win on Super Tuesday, or at least he mentioned California. I understand how he doesn’t want to tip his hand or set expectations he can’t meet, but we’re going to see this schedule in the next few days as it plays out. We’ll know where the ad buys are. The real question I would have liked to see him answer was the Big Apple trifecta — New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. If Romney’s making a big push there, he’s clearly going for broke. (Advertise in New York City stations, you hit all three states. Might as well go for it, man. In for a penny, in for a pound.)

2) I know he’s got to keep the chin-up attitude, but when Romney says, “McCain and I have both won three states,”…. well, winning Wyoming, Nevada, and Michigan is not the same as winning New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida. Two of the caucuses on Romney’s list were barely contested, and the third was where his father was governor. By contrast, McCain had to go toe-to-toe with either Romney or Huckabee in each of his big wins (although we might say New Hampshire is McCain’s second home state).

And when he says Florida was “very, very close indeed,” well…. five percentage points. Bush beat Kerry by the same margin in 2004 in that state.

3) Romney credits McCain’s Florida win to the Crist and Martinez endorsements, and he’s probably right, or at least partially right. But that’s a pretty bad sign for California, no? A moderate, popular governor who some conservatives think is a squish, making a big, dramatic endorsement shortly before the primary?