« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Take heart Romney supporters – it’s almost over.

By: Ender (Diary)  |  February 24th, 2012 at 04:15 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

If Mitt wins both Arizona and Michigan, Super Tuesday will be much more tilted towards him and the race will be over. It’s possible that Santorum will win here and there, but like Florida in ’08, Michigan is the last chance for someone to completely unseat the frontrunner.

The last polls are heading Mitt’s way. Today’s Rasmussen from Michigan is Romney 40, Santorum 34, Paul 10, Gingrich 9 while Mitchell/Rosetta Stone shows him at Romney 36, Santorum 33, Paul 12, Gingrich 9. Arizona will not be close and Rasmussen confirms with Romney 42, Santorum 29, Gingrich 16, Paul 8.

Add that to the reality that many people have already voted in both Michigan and AZ, and Romney leads by 23% and 30% respectively among that subset, I doubt any amount of Democrats voting in our primaries can swing it to Rick. The last debate has helped many conservatives realize that Rick Santorum, “I was against it, before I voted for it,” is not a Reaganesque savior. And sorry, but Newt is done.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • tomrt

    Restore Our Future Independent Expenditures
    Independent Expenditures, Communication Costs and Coordinated Expenses as of February 24, 2012:
    opensecrets.org

    Grand Total: $25,494,701
    Total For Democrats: $0
    Total Against Democrats: $0
    Total For Republicans: $811,954

    Money spent by Romney’s Thug-PAC against other Republicans through 2/24:
    Total Against Republicans: $24,682,747
    Gingrich, Newt: $17,793,823
    Santorum, Rick: $6,888,924: $6,888,924

    and on pro-Romney ads:
    Romney, Mitt R: $811,954

    The message that comes through from Romney to our young: grow up to become a selfish thug and an unprincipled hack. It pays!

    • Ender

      I shudder with the thought of either Newt or Rick against Obama.

      • tomrt

        to Gingrich in SC despite a 2-1 spending edge. Santorum took him to the woodshed in IA, CO, MN and MO similarly. Romney was able to steal Florida only by out-spending (and mercilessly carpet-bombing) Newt 5-1. His Nevada win was mostly from Mormons (25% of the caucus goers) voting 90% for him and helping with his organization there, aided by some momentum from his Florida steal and some spending edge.

        In fact, after campaigning for 6 years straight and spending well over a hundred millions of dollars, mostly attacking his opponents (McCain, Huckabee, Fred Thompson and Giuliani in 2008, Rick Perry, Newt and Santorum this time) relentlessly, Romney still hasn’t won a single primary in a state where he hasn’t lived or owned a home in and hasn’t outspent his rivals 5-1. That’s a horrible win-loss record, which makes Romney one of the worst presidential candidates ever on either side.

        Romney will not have a 5-1 edge in the general. Obama and his dirty-PACS will probably have more money than Romney and his thug-PACs. Therefore, judging from his electoral futility thus far (and given his baggage such as Bain and flip-flops) Romney will likely get trounced by Obama.

        Since Newt was able to overcome a 2-1 money handicap to win in SC, and since he and the GOP should fare no worse than a 2-1 handicap vs Obama, maybe he’d have a better shot at defeating BHO. Newt has a compelling message that is rather consistent with his record (as congressman and speaker), and thus good debate performances from him could get him across the finish line. Further, as the architect of the 1994 “Gingrich Revolution” (which propelled Santorum’s 1994 senate victory, for which he should be grateful to Newt. OTOH, while the GOP romped everywhere, Romney failed to capitalize on that groundswell and got clobbered in his senate bid that same year. Yes, Romney’s electoral record is THAT bad!), Newt has a proven record of waging winning nationwide campaigns.

        • demsaresatanic

          He will be outspent and carpet-bombed by Obama; the class-warfare ads write themselves against Romney. The only candidate who has demonstrated the ability to withstand a multi-million dollar negative ad blitz and keep fighting back is Newt.

        • clowngirl

          nt

      • demsaresatanic

        That should frighten establishment-types. Those two probably don’t even know how to use finger bowls. This link might help:

        http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50B1EF63C5A15738DDDA90B94DD405B898CF1D3

    • elayman

      People will either stay home or will be going third party/writing in candidates. You can take it to the bank. He can’t run on RomneyCare, he can’t run on his liberal record in Massachusetts, he simply cannot run on his merits. Mitt won’t be able to outspend or out-carpet bomb Obama with bitter, misleading ads like he could with Newt and Santorum. If this is the only way he can conduct an election, then he can’t win in November. Romney was losing to Newt when the campaign was positive ? If the negative ads are outlawed Newt will win.

      Of course if Romney can’t emerge victorious himself, he’ll be certain that the person who beat him is so damaged, so beaten up by his negative campaign ads that they will have no chance against Obama.

      • Ender

        to run ads educating the republican voters that both Newt and Rick have significant flaws and would be horrendous candidates against Obama. The campaign against Obama will not be positive, but let’s not pretend that this is the first time someone has run a particularly negative campaign .It happens every single time. And then every single time people start wringing their hands predicting that negative campaigning will not work, and that people dislike it.

        The truth is that negative campaigning works. People just hate their faves being on the receiving end of it. And if the person you are running against is particularly odious, as in Obama, then there is absolutely nothing wrong in exposing that to the rest of America.

        Republicans will still come out and vote for Romney, and if he does a smart job attacking Obama he has a chance of winning, something the other 2 do not have at all.

        • elayman

          The slime is already coming back to hit hard. I’m assuming there is a two-pronged strategy, At least Obama can point to an improving economy, such as it is, and a relatively healthy positive performance ranking etc. Mitt talks about jobs and the economy alot but doesn?t go beyond that. How do we get the ?soul of America? back? By simply creating more jobs and increasing the defense budget ? What happens if there are more jobs before the election?

        • Agelaius

          is as electable as you think. Santorum polls better against Obama than Romney in several key states, and November is a long time away.

          Remember your base. This next election will be a base election, and we deviate from that at our peril. Do you seriously think that Romney will motivate Christian blue-collar voters? He’s not really one of us. We can’t let this election turn into class warfare, and if we are to preserve unrestrained free enterprise, we need a leader who can make the case for free enterprise with the same humility and the same background as those we expect to turn out and vote.

          I used to think that Romney had it in the bag and was willing to drop everything to support him. But I’m not sure any longer that he is more likely to be elected than Santorum, so it’s time for people to vote their hearts.

        • clowngirl

          Perhaps you noticed his personal favorability ratings took a nose dive after Florida.

      • Vegas_Rick

        His ads about Newt’s ethics investigation and later resignation were bold faced lies. They were not inuendo, they did not stretch the truth, they were outright lies. He’s no betterhan Dem scum.

      • circlegranch

        its time to switch gears to making absolutely sure we hold the House and win the Senate so Obama’s 2nd term is a 4 year long lame duck session,

        Romney has lost what independent support he had and they’ve gone back to Obama. Yes, most of us that chose other candidates will vote for him but our numbers are not enough. He does poorly with Hispanic voters. Women will not see enough daylight between him and Obama to pull the lever for Mitt.

        Time to double down on Senate races and ride out the storm.

    • trickamsterdam

      But it doesn’t pay. What Romney’s done (if he’s the nominee) is win maybe the biggest Pyrrhic Victory since the original.

      He’s exploded his negatives among Republicans and Independents, depleted his (and at some point even the Super Pac’s) war-chest.

      This primary season isn’t like the D one in 2008…it’s like the D one in 1980, where Carter never recovered.

      He’s not even going to be able to get a good VP candidate, because by the time it’s time to pick, the stink of loserdom is going to be all over him….it’ll follow him around in a cloud, like the character PigPen in the Peanuts cartoons. So no one good’s going to want to run w/ him.

      The smart money already knows he’s a loser…why haven’t people like Rubio and P. Ryan endorsed him? Because they have promising futures and don’t want to be associated w/ this disaster of a Presidential candidate…I have no doubt that Romney is so soundly beaten by Obama that the House is decimated as well, or maybe even out-right lost.

      Around August or September…that’s when even the money to the Super Pac starts to dry up, because the curtain is going to have been pulled back by then…no more conservative media to cover for him, just the MSM breaking his back every hour of every day. Couldn’t happen to a nicer robot.

      Here’s another hint, because I hear Romney people say they’re going to turn all the negativity around by rallying people against Obama.

      1) That doesn’t work w/ Independents

      2) Some people would rather cut off their right hands than vote for him, and not gonna change their minds whatever some cynical “strategist” in DC or NYC thinks. Some of those people who won’t vote for him might even post on this thread…but I’ll say no more than that out of respect for the rules of the site.

      But to sum it up, what Romney’s done, is doing, will continue to do does not “pay”….at least not for him.

      What he’s done is waste tens of millions of dollars of his own money and a half a decade of his life, and he’s not even going to get close to what he wants.

      Obama out-spends, out-slanders, out-MSM proxies him, and it’s over by the time the polls close on the West Coast. I’m not kidding. Romney’s going to be slaughtered so badly and in so many ways, they may classify it as a war crime. So no, it doesn’t pay to live or to be like Romney.

      • Ender

        and how the general election is going to go. It’s nonsense to say that today’s polls are somehow reflective of what will happen in November. If Romney’s current negatives going up was predictive of the November result, then what was the point of even trying with Newt, whose negatives have been consistently through the roof.

        Anyways, all this is temporary. Most people are not focusing on election right now and are hearing superficial reports of this or that candidate going negative.

        Every single time during primaries people’s negatives go up and these dire predictions surface. It’s meaningless. Once we have a nominee, a lot of this will be wiped clean as people will start focusing on defeating Obama.

        People have short memories. Most “independents” that we need to swing will start focusing less than a month before the election.

        Pardon me if I am not terribly worried now.

        • trickamsterdam

          Forgive me, but I didn’t bother to read your post because the title line that I’ve quoted above tells me you can’t even keep your story straight within a single thread.

          It’s “to early to predict that anyone’s done”?

          Then why did you right this is a post: “I shudder with the thought of either Newt or Rick against Obama.” – ender

          And a Diary entitled this: “Take heart Romney supporters it’s almost over” – ender

          When Romney contradicts himself, I know it’s because he’s a liar. That’s because the only other explanation would be that he’s dumb. And I know Mitt Romney’s not dumb.

          You also contradict yourself too, and I’ll say this about you: I don’t think you’re a liar.

    • independentconservative

      First off, its pretty obvious that RS is anti-Romney from its very editor who is a pessimist by nature, on down. Romney gives us the best chance to beat Obama because he has money, because he has the establishment, and because he can bring moderates and independents that Santorum cannot.

      Old people are the ones that care about contraception and traditional marriage. Here is a prime example of what I am talking about. Idiot Youth voters haven’t learned a thing since 2008 and the geezer Republican party does nothing to court them.

      http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/24/us-usa-campaign-youth-idUSTRE81N1FO20120224

      We are never going to make any grounds in the Northeast as Guiliani told Greta Van Sustren last week if we don’t have a larger tent. And lets not pretend that Romney=McCain for that is an insult to Romney. Romney is full of ideas and McCain was a RINO who was too grandfatherly. He refused to take on controversial Obama topics and give it back to Obama whereas Romney isn’t afraid.

      All you “I’m going to hold my nose and vote for Romney” or “I’m not voting for Williard” or “I’m going to vote 3rd party” know what the end result will be and we will have you ideologues to thank for another four years of Obamamania. Grow up people and start using your heads. Start thinking what is best for this country and this party and that answer is Romney.

      • westcoastpatriette

        So speak for yourself until the primary process is done and we have a candidate. Until then, you are just as guilty as any of the others who argue for their candidate and express their doubts about yours.

      • SoFiMil

        Romney would definitely disagree with you. In fact, according to Mitt, he’s a “serious conservative” (sic).

        So, “independent” conservative, is Romney the most conservative candidate? And if he is, does this not mean that both Santorum and Gingrich will have more success bringing in moderates and independents?

        • independentconservative

          Everyone knows in order from most to least conservative the order is

          1. Santorum
          2. Gingrich
          3. Romney
          4 Paul

          The only problem is, Gingrich comes across as an “angry white man” and has crazy ideas like wasting hundreds of billions of dollars on moon colonization. Also, the fact he tries to be a Washington outsider when he was Speaker of the House is laughable.

          I’m telling you, Santorum’s views on contraception and traditional marriage are only going to go over well in the South and among older voters. Young voters don’t care about these issues if you read the link I provided. I know several independents and moderates as well as younger voters who are scared of Santorum and who will vote 3rd party if he wins. He turns off voters. You tell me how moderates and independents are expected to vote for a guy so far right as Santorum or a guy so angry as Gingrich?

          No SoFiMil, you have it backwards, Romney can bring in independents and moderates from New England and rust belt swing states that the others cannot. Gingrich was lucky to win one state but that’s all he’s done. The only reason he’s even still in the race is because of Adelson’s money supporting him. Thank Goodness that he seems willing to give tens of millions more to the eventual Republican nominee and its just sold on Gingrich.

          I know a lot of you are trying to stay true to your values and can’t vote for a guy like Romney but while that logic is admirable, it isn’t going to matter in the General Election when the best either of these two candidates do would be a McCain-esque 180+ electoral votes. Values are great because they are important to you, but that isn’t going to win an election. This election is about the economy and not a 2000ish values campaign of 2004 or anything like that.

          Our best bet is to see where the gas prices go as that could be a nice equalizer if Republicans can run with it. Also, in the rust belt, particularily PA, they would be wise to really explain what the Keystone Pipeline would have meant to jobs because other than political junkies, the average voter is uninformed and doesn’t know or care about that (even though they should).

          Finally, I expect Romney to go back toward the middle if he secures the nomination while allowing his VP like Rubio or Christie to be the conservative values champion. All I know is no matter who he’d nominate to the Supreme Court, or what other issues come up as to how he governs, I guarantee you it will be better than whatever the incumbent would have done so that alone would be worth it.

          Its almost as if some of you are just as fearful of a Romney Presidency than the current one and I just don’t understand that. As bad as it “could’ be, its better than what we have now. Romney isn’t even close to the current Admin. and its almost like you are suggesting they really aren’t that different. 25 years of business has to count for something and how many times does he need to reitterate that he’s pro life, will repeal ObamaCare, and is for tradtional marriage. Its as if some of you still don’t believe him.

          Gingrich and Santorum have surged but Romney has been consistent all along. Slow and steady wins the race, isn’t that what they say? Also, read any poll and who has consistently done the best in any head-to-head? Who can go into the far West and swing those states? Many more states are in play with him as the hypothetical nominee.

          • wantthegopback

            1) you are right, a lot of conservatives don’t believe mitt on the issues you mention, and quite reasonably so.
            2) Romney cannot win the general. In a reelection, during wartime, independents and swing voters will not replace the sitting president with someone who they see as about the same. They won’t take the chance. The only chance is with someone these voters see as significantly different. Romney’s whole electability argument is that he is not scary (re similar to Obama), and that’ll fail.

          • SoFiMil

            Appreciate your honesty in ranking order IC, addition to your post.

            Wouldn’t like it, but I’d respect him more if Mitt admits he’s a moderate. The fact that he won’t say this is his biggest problem. He’ll say *anything* to get elected. I have absolutely no respect for that kind of politician.

            On Fox’s Sunday show he said people have a misperception that he’s not a conservative. Too late Mitt. You had an opportunity at last weeks debate to respond about any misperception by voters and you explicitly refused to answer the question. Why should I listen to you (and believe you) now?

            http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/world-news-political-insights-what-mitt-romney-has-already-lost/#.T0vTWX21f7A.mailto

            He’s a liar to me who will not tell us what he really believes. I like Romney’s ideology better than Huntman, but strongly favored Huntsman over Romney because I knew what I was getting.

          • David123

            Santorum keeps Obamacare front & center as a major issue because it’s fundamentally bad legislation, not just because it violates “states rights”.

            Santorum is a tireless campaigner who has shown he can do a lot with limited resources.

            Santorum has repeatedly won in Pennsylvania state-wide and in D-leaning districts. He has the results that prove he can BE HIMSELF and attract Democrat and independent voters. Romney has never won a general election where he didn’t portray himself as solidly pro-choice and a strong supporter of upholding Roe-v-Wade.

            Rick Santorum has good family values, and he never took a trip with a member of his family on the roof of his car. In Illinois, Kirk (R) won the Senate seat but the Republican candidate for governor lost – because he was portrayed as cruel to animals.

      • acat

        saying bad things about him at Red State will likely bring down quite a lot of wrath … and most of the chatter and diaries will be about which House and Senate races need help.

        Until he’s the nominee, though .. spare me. The guy had *six years* to sew up enough conservative cred, and he squandered it sewing up D.C. insiders and non-confrontational moderate squishes instead.

        Mew

      • tnguy

        And yet your point is “stop all this romney crap”???

        No, we have no one to blame but ourselves. America didn’t get Obama because we held our nose and voted for McCain. America got Obama because conservatives have held their nose and voted for moderate republicans for 20 years. Medicare part D and TARP happened under a republican president (and hundreds of other vile, destructive programs)….Obama is – with my limited historical perspective – the most evil and destructive man to ever sit in the white house. Unfortunatley, the republican who came before him was doing many of the same things.

        Obama is not the enemy. We are our own biggest enemy. Obama is doing what liberals do. Most of us are more concerned with beating Obama than establishing and maintaining conservative principles. But hey, winning is what matters most so that an Anthony Kennedy-type can be on the SCOTUS instead of a Breyer-type. When we find ourselves in something worse than the great depression, most of you will care little about political victories.

        We need dramatic immediate change, and the only candidates who even spoke of such (excepting Ron Paul, who is a raving lunatic) have already been tossed from the race. By republicans.

        Republicans, conservatives, and those right of center in general need to look inward at our party and at ourselves. That’s where the real problem is. Obama is just a symptom of that illness. Not the cause.

        • wantthegopback

          Nt

      • David123

        Obamacare is the major issue in 2012. Santorum and Gingrich are opposed to it; Romney instituted something similar on a state basis.

        Santorum has won multiple elections in Pennsylvania, both state-wide and in Democrat leaning districts; he has a proven record of attracting moderates and independents. Romney won once in Massachusetts, and didn’t even try running for re-election when he was polling badly.

        Rick Santorum has good family values. Gingrich and Romney have family values issues; at least Gingrich has normal family values issues since lots of other people have been divorced. Romney manages to have weird family values issues – who besides Romney goes on a trip with a member of his family on the roof of the car!? Yeah, that was the dog, not one of the kids – but still lots of people consider their pets to be part of the family – if you think it doesn’t matter, talk to Illinois’ Republican governor. Oh. that’s right – Illinois has a Democratic governor who won the governor’s race by portraying his opponent as cruel to pets.

        Romney is outspending both Santorum and Gingrich. Yet despite this, and splitting the conservative vote, both Santorum and Gingrich regularly beat Romney.

        Now Obama is so far left, even Romney might be able to beat him, but Santorum is clearly a much safer choice. Furthermore, if we swear in President Santorum or President Gingrich we know they will repeal Obamacare, nominate originalist judges, allow the Keystone pipeline, and steer the country right. With Romney, we can hope he’ll govern as a conservative, but his entire record does not inspire much confidence that he is guided by deeply held conservative principles.

  • jamesm

    He is loved by:

    1) The Establishment
    2) Obama’s campaign (can’t wait to put up his picture on TV)
    3) The late night comedians
    4) the “very poor”
    5) Cadillac dealers
    6) Investors in Bain
    7) Heathcare lobbyists
    8) MSNBC
    9)A billionaire Tea partier wanna be
    10) Ann Coulter

    • circlegranch

      Ms. Coulter has spun every possible angle to sell Romney that her brain can conjure. Still, he’s stuck at 30% and 15% of that has simply settled.

      Her latest rant is at The Daily Caller where she pouts in a Fox interview over comments made by Jeb Bush. She claims Jeb and Sarah Palin are both running and hope to emerge from a contested convention as the nominee. Bush said attacks going back and forth amongst candidates play on people’s fears. Ms. Coulter disagrees. She just wants this over. Nothing has gone according to plan. First, Romney would win IA, carry NH with a landslide, win by a thin margin in SC and then FL would be the icing on the cake. Game over. Here it is, on the brink of March and Romney still isn’t a lock.

      Coulter has brought nothing to his campaign except false advertising and snake oil salesmanship. She isn’t practical in terms of being a true conservative that believes in vetting and allowing The People’s voice to be heard. She keeps trying to sell herself as the nuanced, independant voter mind reader that everyone should line up behind in supporting Romney, but her snark that borders on vitriol keeps catching on fire once plugged in. Her performance is less than anticipated and she’s overrated herself.

      She is stuck on stupid in her neocon mind that Rick Perry is pro-amnesty. Desperate and fighting hard to find a zinger that would win her argument, she drags the Texas Governor through the mud twice in her interview. Once, slamming his debate performances and secondly, making the false accusation (for which she should publicly apologize) that he’s pro-amnesty. I guess that ‘self-deportation’ policy thing will work better than Perry’s proven record of tough border security to the extent the Fed’s will allow.

      Mitt Romney’s awkward, very odd comments in MI at the football stadium would have been hilarious fodder for Ms. Coulter had they come from another candidate. “I love America, I should love Michigan. The trees are the right size here.” It’s also interesting that Mitt’s other Ann, his wife, now says “no more debates”, When Rick Perry admitted that debates were not his forte and not his preferred venue and that he might not attend any more, Mitt was aided by Coulter in promoting the idea that if he can’t debate his primary opponents, he can’t debate Obama. It is with such ease that the tetonic plates are shifted when it favors one’s agenda.

      In response to Jeb’s comments, Ann scolded, “We certainly don’t need the peanut gallery throwing shots as well.” Sage advice, Ann. Perhaps you should follow it.

  • skymutt

    but I do not see any of his opponents dropping out anytime soon. If the other candidates cannot defeat Romney outright, it then becomes all about preventing him from getting enough delegates to seal the nomination before the convention.

    Right now, I think Romney has a better chance to win than any one other individual, but if I had to predict whether it would be Romney or not Romney, and my life depended on my prediction, I think I would predict not Romney.

    I have to say, it is getting more interesting than the average primary. I think it will still be interesting even if Romney wins MI and AZ.

  • Martin Knight

    If not, then please explain how insisting (and barely hiding the fact that you’re actually hoping and praying) that he’ll lose in November does not help Obama.

    • trickamsterdam

      It doesn’t help him because Romney’s supporters may realize he and his candidacy are doomed in time for them to PULL BACK.

      Romney is unelectable for the reasons I laid out, and there’s so many more. For example he appeals to Independents in States that Republicans can’t win in (e.g., CT, NY), but not in States they can win in, and, in fact, NEED to win in (e.g., PA, OH).

      Because Romney’s supporters emphasize the fact that he is ELECTABLE as maybe the prime reason to vote for him (not just on sites like this, check Romney’s own site) it’s perfectly valid for me to point out that actually…he’s the opposite of electable.

      Now, realistically, what I say may have little effect…but then it would also have little negative effect. But, boss, if people who think this thing is actually electable would maybe just take a look at the recent polls vs Obama; how he’s winning these States he’s winning (overwhelming paid media and in the tank free media); how many resources he’s going to have to devote to even winning Red States while Obama is breezing through Blue States and can concentrate on Swing States; the fact that things that have been off-limits or semi-off limits (his Wall St background, his religion) are going to be shamelessly exploited by the Democrats, with a complicit MSM; and then if you’d actually realize he’s UNELECTABLE (entirely fair to bring up, because that’s his major selling point) you might pull back in time to prevent Obama from having the crushing victory that he’s well on the way to having, which should be fairly obvious to anyone who has even a rudimentary grasp of political strategy.

      PS – At one time I was one of the only people on this site wanting a brokered convention. Now a lot of people do. I was right about that, and I’m right about the fact that Romney’s a stiff. Sorry, boss, however much you want him to win…barring a disaster that can be directly traced back to Obama, he can’t (and it can’t be something like the Wall St crash of 2008, that was pinned on McCain, because the press will protect Obama…that’s not “helping him” to admit that…that’s the situation, IMO).

      Here’s the percentages as I see it:

      brokered convention candidate – unknown obviously, but a good ticket should be close to 50/50

      Santorum – about 45% (because I think he has a real chance in PA and OH)

      Newt – Maybe 40% (a puncher’s chance, but more like a glory ride like 1964…a fun ride though)

      Romney – Less than 40% – Can’t compete in the Rust Belt, can’t take NE states, has to devote resources to Red States because they can’t stand him, while Obama breezes through Blue States, has shown no ability to win whatsoever when he’s not vastly out-spending the competition along with help from his little elf Paul.

      So I’m not helping Obama. You’re helping Obama by supporting Romney in the Primaries. Goodnight and goodluck.

      • Martin Knight

        First of all, any analysis of the race that declares Romney unelectable at this point on the basis of his business experience and his Mormonism is more fed by a personal antipathy to Romney than any objective reading of the political assets or liabilities of Mitt Romney.

        Every single one of these so-called negatives can be neutralized.

        PS: I am a supporter of a contested convention. I even have a preferred candidate.

        • acat

          However, *doing so* requires spending time or treasure .. and even Mitt Romney’s coffers aren’t bottomless… something the post you reply to did state.

          Further, it’s not about Willard’s religion… it’s about Willard himself. I’m surprised to find that you brought up this argument.

          Mew

          • trickamsterdam

            (I paraphrased your words)

            Well, in defense of Martin Knight, I did bring up Romney’s religion first, because I do think the Democrats and their surrogates in the MSM would shamlessly exploit it…if they had to.

            It’s likely that Romney is so weak they can simply take him down by lying about his record at Bain and exploiting Romney’s personal creepiness, which won’t be hard when you have a photo of Romney and a bunch of guys w/ slicked-back hair who look like Charlie Sheen in “Wall Street” posing w/money in between their teeth, in their hair, and I’m doing this by memory, but I think one of them actually had it sticking out of his crotch.

            I’ve always though Romney’s Mormonism was a factor, although potentially a net positive in the Primaries (e.g., NV, AZ) but a potential problem in the General if the Ds wanted to exploit it.

            When you look at the feeding frenzies around the Cain sex charges (which I don’t believe they would have pursued in that way if it had been a black Democrat leading the polls for President); Perry and the racist rock; even Santorum and birth control while ignoring that even after Obama DEFINITELY knew everything the Rev Wright said, Obama still defended him at the Philadelphia Race Speech (e.g., “soundbites make him sound bad”, “he was a Marine”, “he grew up in segregation”) you understand that the MSM have no shame.

            Here they will have their cake and eat it too, if they need to attack Mormonism, by blaming conservative Christians. They will run endless specials about anything that seems weird in Mormonism, and the reason they will give is “we have to cover it because conservative Christians have questions about Mormons”.

            That’ll be their escape hatch. Like I said, though, Romney is so incredibly weak as a candidate I doubt they’ll even have to go there…but if they do, they will (shamelessly).

            PS – There was a guy, maybe a month or whatever ago, named Soothsayer who said people were against Romney because he was a Mormon, and I argued w/ him, and you were on the thread too. But the reason I was arguing was because he was saying there was no reason to support Newt over Romney, except anti-Mormon bigotry, which was clearly ridiculous (i.e., Newt has a lifetime ACU rating of 92% and led the second conservative revolution, Romney was a failed [36% approval rating] barely right of center one term governor, whose primary achievement was RomneyCare).

        • trickamsterdam

          He does lousy in Purple States, which is one of the points I think I made pretty clearly that I guess you disagreed with:

          http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/why-mitt-romney-might-be-even-weaker-than-you-think.php?ref=fpb

          Now I’m waiting to hear polls don’t matter or things can change by November which is hilarious from a candidacy that constantly uses polls and November arguments as reasons people shouldn’t vote for Newt and Santorum.

          As far as his business background and religion not being factors, why do you think he trails in purple states to Santorum, despite his big resource advantage and not great recent publicity for Santorum? Again, this guy’s not a movement conservative…he’s been selling electability from the the beginning. And his major selling point is simply false.

          So if it makes you uncomfortable when I list potential reasons he’s unelectable, I don’t know what to tell you.

    • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

      Here’s the predicament Romney puts me in:

      1) In the short-term (2013-2016), Romney is better for the country than Obama

      2) In the long-term (2017+), the country will be worse off for Romney’s being president 2013-2016 that if Obama served as second term – if we still had a recognizable representative democracy after a second Obama term

      3) However, I don’t think our country can undergo a second Obama term and remain recognizable as a representative democracy

      In other words, Romney as our nominee will destroy the conservative movement. The only question is whether this will occur immediately by ushering in a second Obama terms, or more slowly at the hands of a Romney presidency.

      • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

        and I tend to agree except for the “destroy” part. Severely damage, yes. However, there’s always hope and prayer. I’d prefer to hope that conservatives who have gotten involved at their local levels along with the principled conservatives we’ve elected will start to make a real difference in 4-8 years. And who knows, perhaps another Reagan will emerge during that time. What is key is to stay involved and not give up. We didn’t get in this mess overnight, and it’s going to take more than a couple of election cycles to fix it. Though it is getting more difficult to see the glass half full instead of half empty.

      • acat

        Romney is Nixon…. better than the alternative, but not by much.

        There isn’t a Reagan in the race, closest we’ve got is a Newt.

        All that said, my hope is that we’ll elect a republican president, and as many Conservatives to congress as possible, to ensure said president stays on track.

        Mew

      • Martin Knight

        Milton Friedman in a nutshell elegantly explains why I believe that Mitt Romney is going to end up pleasantly surprising Conservatives if he’s elected President. Unlike Jonah Goldberg, I don’t believe he’ll be a Conservative out of gratitude, i.e. because he’ll “owe” us; it will be because he’ll have no choice. Keeping the GOP’s conservative rank-and-file happy would not be just be a matter of political profit for a President Romney, it will be a matter of political survival.

        Like I’ve written before, when I look at Romney’s record, I add in 800 vetoes (700+ overturned) and factor in an 85% Democratic State Legislature and a 100% Democratic Governor’s Council (which signs off on judicial nominations). I also count eight overturned line item vetoes in the Massachusetts Health Care Insurance Reform Law (AKA RomneyCare), multiple attempts to cut taxes and the fact that he came in facing a $3 billion deficit and left office with a nearly $600 million surplus.

        I believe Romney would be a strong and able President and he would be fiscally better than George W. Bush and most importantly stratospherically better than Barack Obama. I believe he will be pro-life and pro-gun in word and deed throughout his Presidency and that he would nominate conservative judges and push them through the Senate.

        I believe all this because I believe that a President Mitt Romney would seek a second term in 2016. He’s too ambitious not to, and if there’s anything no one can doubt, it’s the breadth and depth of Mitt Romney’s ambition. And he certainly would not want to be a one-term President. Which is where we’ll own him, lock, stock and barrel.

        Jonah Goldberg’s Case for Romney has as a subtitle; “A president who owes you is better than one who owns you.” My case is somewhat different; “A President you own is better than one who owes you.“

        Let me spell it out; 2016 will see a whole bunch of people finishing up their sixth years as Governors in their states – people with names like Susana Martinez, Brian Sandoval, Nikki Haley and Scott Walker(!). A man named Chris Christie would actually be rounding up their seventh year in office while another guy named Bobby Jindal would be just one year out of the Governor’s office in Baton Rouge. There’s also a guy named Bob McDonnell who would be three years termed out of office in his home state of Virginia, perhaps even serving in the Senate. And speaking of the Senate, there are one or two former Governors who are young enough to try their luck if a President Romney is stupid enough to provide them with an opening, not to mention a rising star named Marco Rubio and old veterans with names like John Thune.

        In other words, unlike 2008 and 2012, in 2016 Conservatives are going to have lots and lots of … options.

        And you’d best believe that a President Romney and his staff are going to be well aware of those options and what would happen if he fails to walk the line – and the need for him to do so would be even more acute given how little he’s trusted by Conservatives in the first place. No Republican White House would want a repeat of 1992 – and with so many viable alternatives, and a significantly more organized conservative base, it’s not so much that a President Romney would fear not being able to win the General Election in November 2016, it’s that he might just become the very first sitting President to experience the humiliation of failing to win his own Party’s nomination in the Primaries.

        That’s why I will vote for Mitt Romney in my state’s upcoming primary – not only do I believe that he’s the most electable in a General Election of the three candidates left, I believe he’ll govern as a conservative because I believe he’s much more conservative than he’s given credit for.

        And because we’ll have him by the cojones.

        • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

          regarding Mitt’s governance and 2016, in the unlikely event he were to win:

          1) If conservatives can’t find a suitable candidate versus Romney as a non-incumbent this year facing an extreme left Democrat, how can they mount a challenge against a “moderate” Republican incumbent president with all the money and spoils of office that he will enjoy, not to mention being the titular head of the part who was supported by the party leadership.

          2) Romney will be spending the next four years undercutting his possible opposition candidate from the right – and will have plenty of time to make them toxic to the electorate. Since these folks are active at the state level, he in concert with a “bipartisan” Congress will take away state powers and hamstring our rising governors from effectively solving their state’s problems with a further shift towards Federal power.

          3) That is when he and his cohorts are not railing against extreme right wing ideas during this time. This will immunize the American people against a conservative ideas.

          4) And he will have the media on his side against a challenge from the right who will immediately talk about division and the idiocy of conservatives who would split the party, etc.

          No if Mitt wins, he will make conservatism toxic for a generation. And consign the Republican party to permanent minority status by 2016 or 2020.

          Perhaps I should think of expanding this into a diary?

          • SoFiMil

            They will then continue to move left, citing Romney’s win as example. Of course, the real answer if this scenario plays out is the moderate win *inspite* of his move to the left — and not *because* of it.

            I will vote for Romney if it comes down to it. But I feel as if I’m darned if I do, and darned if I don’t.

          • Martin Knight

            If conservatives can?t find a suitable candidate versus Romney as a non-incumbent this year facing an extreme left Democrat, how can they mount a challenge against a ?moderate? Republican incumbent president with all the money and spoils of office that he will enjoy, not to mention being the titular head of the part who was supported by the party leadership.

            2016 would be an entirely different environment from the shallow-bench years of 2008 and 2012. The decision by many to stay at home in 2006 and 2008 to “teach ‘em a lesson” turns out to have far-reaching consequences.

            Like I mentioned before, we’re going to have a much deeper bench to choose from in 2016 with names like Walker, Martinez, Haley, Sandoval, Christie, Jindal, etc. Even Mike Pence would be a possibility as he should be rounding up his first term as Governor of Indiana in 2016. And that’s not counting people like John Hoeven, John Thune and even Marco Rubio in the Senate.

            Second, a President Romney would have acquired a record and if it is not a winning one the party apparatus can certainly reject him. The party leadership was even more influential and powerful in 1976 and it still took Ford until the convention to secure the nomination.

            Romney will be spending the next four years undercutting his possible opposition candidate from the right ? and will have plenty of time to make them toxic to the electorate. Since these folks are active at the state level, he in concert with a ?bipartisan? Congress will take away state powers and hamstring our rising governors from effectively solving their state?s problems with a further shift towards Federal power.

            With all due respect (and it is quite a lot), this is just your antipathy to Romney talking. I really doubt that Romney would deliberately pursue policies designed to undermine Republican Governors, simply to shore up his re-election prospects. He may be a lot of things … but I sincerely doubt he’s a nihilist or sociopath.

            That’ll mean he’ll be actively working to ensure problems bedevil the Governors (and citizens) of OH, LA, WI, NM, MI, NV, SC, VA, NJ, etc. I submit that having such a vast swathe of states in trouble will almost certainly imperil his own re-election prospects, especially if any of the Governors decides to point out who’s responsible.

            And finally, there will be no bipartisanship if Mitt Romney defeats Obama. Simply put, it takes two to “bipartisan”. Romney defeating Obama would automatically make him a Left-Wing hate figure – imagine Reagan multiplied by Bush’43 and cubed.

            Any Democrat found in the background of a picture with Romney in it, much less cutting a “bipartisan” deal with him would have primary challengers coming out of the woodwork.

            Let’s also not forget the fact that the Democrats would have 20 Senate seats to our 13 to defend in 2014 – the cool part of it is that the most vulnerable of our Senators is Susan Collins, and she’s really not that vulnerable.

            And he will have the media on his side against a challenge from the right who will immediately talk about division and the idiocy of conservatives who would split the party, etc.

            If Mitt Romney defeats Barack Obama, he will not – ever – have the media on his side for anything short of personally performing a partial birth abortion live on national television, much less helping him shore up his right flank for a second term. They will be too busy publishing stories about Ann Romney’s “secret lover”, his sons’ school records, and his seven year old grandchild’s “porn habit” and doing everything they can to undermine him. They will simply be out for revenge.

            In other words, Mitt has no choice. The media and the Left (but I repeat myself) is categorically never going to accept him if he defeats Barack Obama, and the Right won’t accept him if he betrays us – especially since he’s so much suspected that we’ll be subjecting his every move with the third degree. The middle, as usual, will go with the flow.

            Like water, politicians follow the path of least resistance. The fundamentals of 2016 makes the path of being a conservative – shoring up his base and making a Primary challenge less viable to the Walkers and Christies – significantly easier than sabotaging several states where potential rivals are seated as Governors and trying to win over a media establishment that will never be on his side.

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

            I didn’t mean to imply that Romney would specifically target his potential rivals who are governors – there’s too many of them and it would draw attention – but rather than his expansion of the federal government would undercut the efforts of the governors to establish a good record of governance by taking power out of their hands.

            The bigger point is that Romney and most of the Republicans in Congress favor increasing the power of the federal government – and their own power concurrently – and in that sense they will tend to tend to look left rather than right to form a majority. They’re still operating under the old coalition model of sharing the loot and don’t realize that the Democrats really do mean to form a hard left one-party state and cut them out of the loop.

            In other words, the question with Romney as the nominee becomes not whether but how fast the ship of state heads leftward.

            But at this point, I really don’t know for sure what is going to be best. Four more years of Obama could so undermine our institutions of government that we’ll be in uncharted waters come 2016. I don’t see a path to a Romney win as that script has already been written. Santorum would break the script, but I don’t know if the outcome would be better or worse, Gingrich would also change the script. I’m waiting to see what the March 6 primaries bring.

            We all can talk, but the next move up to the primary voters.

          • Martin Knight

            [nt]

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

            …and then I am reminded of the wisdom of writing long comments in a word processing program first. And promptly go back to writing straight in comment boxes again.

            Though when I have the time to recompose, I often am more coherent the second time.

        • elayman

          The budget numbers won’t balance and you are talking about a second term ? He would spend hundreds of billions of dollars on tax cuts, expanded tax expenditures, defense build up,not repeal Obamacare and exempt Social Security from the cuts ,all while running the country as a businessman. Voters that buy into the conservative garbage must not be analysts. It is literally impossible to eliminate the budget deficit if the cuts are to come primarily in discretionary non-security spending.

          • Dave_A

            Like it or not, people want to see vision.

            They want the President to lead the nation ‘somewhere’, not be an ‘accountant in chief’.

          • elayman

            And that is as fraudulent as any of his other claims to expertise. The fact that Romeny’s stands on the issues have been so fungible over the years means we really don’t know what he’d do if he got elected. It’s why the TP’ers don’t trust him, and it’s why the general electorate won’t either. Too much uncertainty. Good luck taking a fire ax to popular programs without broad based public support.

    • APA Guy

      I just think he is the candidate Obama wants more than Gingrich or Santorum. Romney is the one candidate who both splits the party and has negatives related almost solely to his record as governor and in the private sector.

      As far as Romney being a worse president than Obama, fat chance on that. Romney knows and understands what it takes to grow robust businesses…something Obama can’t find with two hands and a potato gun.

      • APA Guy

        nt

  • Viet71

    Just read the comments.

    – some legitimate Romney supporters (signal)

    – some legitimate Romney opponents (signal)

    – some Lefty anti-Romney infiltrators (noise)

  • The_Rebel

    and that is many heads will be exploding here at RS on Tuesday night when Romney takes both Michigan and Arizona by comfortable margins.

  • clowngirl

    Jump starting his campaign.

    This is far from over. Nice wishful thinking.

  • tngal

    this morning and I’m wondering if she has a lot of clout across the board in AZ or just with anti-illegal crowds.

    • WillWong

      As pictures of her wagging her finger at Obama, news of her declining the White House dinner for governors go viral and when Mitt loses Arizona despite her endorsement.

      • tngal

        on the anti-Ill front, but wondered how well she does in AZ because of other policies or bills/vetoes and what have you she manages. Since I’m not in Romney rowboat I am heartened you feel he isn’t going to take that state.

        (Latest gossip: Daily Beast is floating a story about Justice Clarence Thomas running for Pres. Hadn’t considered that one. Wouldn’t be the worst candidate in the field, Maybe if he won we could get another conservative or two in the SCOTUS )

        • trickamsterdam

          Let’s do it. We know he understands and can articulate Conservatism, and any Republican who can get a modest amount of the Af. Amer. vote while keeping the Republican Base can beat any Democrat (modest = arpprox 20%, but 15% would probably do, and w/ 25% he would crush).

          It would completely annihilate all the “he’s the most electable” arguments for Romney, which are false anyway, and when the first polls come out, it won’t even be close. He plays well w/ SoCons and w/ the intellectual wing of the Party and w/ the people who just want to win.

          No one but the stupidest liberals liberals would try to make the argument that he’s stupid, they’d have to find another route to attempt to destroy.Think of him as Herman Cain w/ a resume no one can make fun of…that almost sounds like a joke, but that is actually an incredibly potent candidate.

          With the prestige of the Court, his good chance to win, and his age and accomplishments leaving the door open that he might not run for a second term, he’d get his pick of the best VP candidates, as well.

          Thomas/Rubio might actually make Democratic Party heads explode, like the poor dude in “Scanners”, or perhaps their Strategists would simply go into dark corner and cry softly…Thomas/Ryan would only make them sweat slightly less though.

          Note: I am ready to believe this rumor for two reasons

          1) Hi, my name is trickamsterdam, and I have Romney Derangement Syndrome (crowd: Hi ‘Trick!). It has been a long condition, but became chronic after the FL primary, where Romney thought so little of himself or the opinions of Newt voters that he ran (literally) 99.99% negative ads about his opponent, and only .01% positive ads about himself. It was a stunning indictment of Romney’s intellectual (and in my opinion moral) bankruptcy. Now I desperately grab onto any rumor that may leave me in a scenario where I don’t have to endure Romney for the next nine months, much like a gambler deeply in debt to the Mob is willing to try any scheme in an attempt to pay them back (“honey, let’s try to sell cocaine at your Tupperware Parties!”).

          2) His wife seems to be pretty activist politically, and I could see her pushing him to do it, and I could see him (based on some interviews I’ve seen/read) having the personality to want to try to do it.

          PS – I understand some of Thomas’ decisions came from his interpretations of the Constitution, not his personal feelings (what he said about his vote on the TX sodomy law comes to mind, but he clearly understands and can articulate conservatism….Romney does not understand, and not understanding, can obviously not speak on it in any even remotely coherent way).

          • aesthete

            Best SC Justice of my lifetime, for sure. Great guy in general with a very inspiring life story. I don’t know how well he’d manage the transition from the judiciary to a more politicized, bureaucratic, and leadership role (or that I want for his replacement to be picked by the Obama administration), but if he runs, sign me up as a supporter.

          • Scope

            SC Justice Thomas needs desperately to stay right where he is, at the SC. We cannot afford to lose one of our conservative justices. Not one. The makeup is currently 4 libs, 4 conservatives, and one that swings both ways with any given case.

            In addition, do you remember the debacle that surrounded the hearings when Thomas was nominated? Remember the leftist woman who tried to claim that he was some kind of sex addict? You can multiple that by 100x if Thomas was even dumb enough to throw himself into the ring, which I know he is not. Think about all the Uncle Tom crap that would ensue from the left, just as it did for Steele in MD, and Cain in the campaign.

            Don’t even go there with this more than rediculous proposition. It’s a ploy.

          • trickamsterdam

            I’m not sure it’s a ploy, Scope, so much as internet “columnists” sneezing out of their ——. But I agree it’s probably ridiculous.

            However, he’s got a way better chance of being elected than Romney, and all his supporters keep acting like he’s a favorite or something. So basically, I’d say: Romney supporters are the ones who are ridiculous for even making me want this to be true.

            Note: On a serious tip, though, I’m not sure he has to resign to Run. And if he loses, he could just go back. Good catch, though, I hadn’t thought of that…that’s the perfect attack route for Democrats to question not only his seriousness, but “Oh, God, he’s going to be President and SC Justice and create a Theocracy!”.

            LOL. Have to admit, the attack might work though. But, basically, as w/ most things in the World (and even the greater Universe)…it’s Romney’s fault. Since I’m in a good mood, I’ll make fun of him in a kind way instead of comparing him to Caligula:

            Ricky Ricardo Voice: “Oh, Romney (Lucy), you make me so mad!” :)

          • tngal

            And consider, with a brokered he would only be running against Obama. And for all the arguments against, the Beast writer does a fair job of outlining how some of these problems can be overcome. Including the Anita Hill mess.

            BTW..if anyone’s interested..here’s the dohickey.

            http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/26/clarence-thomas-is-a-long-shot-for-president-but-his-candidacy-makes-a-lot-of-sense.html

  • clowngirl

    Romney has to win Michigan to realistically stay viable. And given its heavy Mormon population and the fact no other candidate has campaigned there much, he pretty much HAS to win Arizona.

    In doing so he’d be meeting expectations not exceeding them.. Actually with the projected margin in MI – you might even be able to argue he under performed.

    So, by winning two states he was always expected to win he will NOT be able to decisively take over the race.

    But it could be extremely important for another reason.

    In beating Santorum he prevents the sort of momentum that would prove a potential mortal threat to Gingrich, and he puts himself in a position to possibly be able to win Ohio. (despite the fact Santorum says he’s been camping out in Michigan for 3 weeks in the hopes of winning a “strong second” anything less that a win would be seen as, well – a loss. And wouldn’t tremendously help his momentum)

    Which means that Ohio (where Santorum has almost certainly dropped since the debate ) is likely to be hotly contested between Romney and Santorum. – Meaning a lot of their time and resources will go there.

    Therefore:

    Newt will have little interference in the states where he’s been focusing.

    He might even win the Washington caucus (or at least perform well) and get a nice boost of momentum …

    • trickamsterdam

      This is where I think Newt supporters screw up…ironically, probably fatally for their candidate.

      If you’re a Newt Supporter, you want Romney gone, first and foremost. But you’ll take him beaten and broken as a close second…because at that point the “electability” thing is totally gone.

      Then, when it’s down to the two conservatives (without his electability argument, Romney is nothing, and will become a fringe candidate like Paul), Newt goes at Santorum on the issues, w/ one on one debates, pushes experience and accomplishment, and is on equal or better footing financially (Newt probably would have more money than Santorum).

      Newt then hopes to win the winner take all States at the end, making up for any deficit of delegates as a result of Super Tuesday (by beating Santorum on merit, not propaganda), and either takes the nomination straight out or at the convention.

      But as long as Newt supporters continue to think of Santorum as an equal or even greater threat to Newt (and by the statement I quoted, you clearly do, even if you don’t realize you do), you help keep Romney viable…and as long as Romney is viable Newt has no realistic path to victory (even at a brokered convention).

      PS – Apologize if this post came off as patronizing. Not meant. I enjoy your posts (and for the record, even though I think Santorum or a brokered convention candidate might be more electable, Newt is the Second greatest elected Republican on the Fed level in my lifetime). It’s just we’re at the hour to get technical, and there’s not any time left to sugarcoat things.

      • clowngirl

        Then it could come down to a two man race between Santorum and Gingrich.

        But I don’t agree with you about Romney staying viable by losing Michigan and preventing Newt from having a chance. Romney’s lost his huge financial advantage, his “inevitability”, his high favorables, and a lot of his perceived electability even if wins his home state.

        An upside of a Romney loss is that maybe he’ll reconsider that Georgia debate.

        It also might help Newt’s chances in Washington and Idaho.

        I’m a bit of a chronic optimist but – I think either outcome could turn out to Newt’s benefit. Either way, both candidates just burned a ton of resources in one state, both are likely to bring up their negatives, and one will have a decent sized set back.

        But to some extent you’re correct *at the moment* I do kind of see Santorum as the bigger immediate threat because he polls better in the states Newt wants to win on Super Tuesday. But I will certainly celebrate if Romney loses his home state!

        And thank you for the compliment. :)

        • clowngirl

          The race has been framed for so long as Romney vs. the non-Romneys that there could be pressure to consolidate behind Santorum.

          If Newt does ok in Arizona, it might not be that bad.

          What I do find frustrating though – is how unlike a general election primary season really is:

          For example: so far almost twice as many people have voted for Newt as for Rick Santorum but because some states conduct caucuses where the nominee is picked by (in some cases) less than 1% of the state’s population – Santorum’s well ahead.

          He also benefitted from scorched earth efforts to take out Newt in both Iowa and Florida while he got to fly under the radar and then get generally positive press. There’s not likely to be any similar windfall against Obama.

          Romney is also benefitting greatly from having both LDS heavy states, and states he’s lived in voting early – during the “momentum” stage of the campaign.

          There’s only one Southern state before Super Tuesday to benefit Newt- meanwhile Romney gets the state where he grew up, another where he has a house and 3 states in the “Mormon Belt”. It seems there are just as many states where Newt would have an advantage but almost all of them vote on Super Tuesday or later.

          He wouldn’t have that advantage in the general election.

        • trickamsterdam

          Strategy is seeing beyond the immediate, which I was trying hard to get across to you.

          With Romney’s victory last night Newt’s chance of being the nominee went from maybe one in five to one in 25.

          Every Newt supporter in Michigan should have voted Santorum.. Well, it doesn’t matter now. Like I said, the hour was late. There wasn’t time to sugarcoat things.

          After last night there is maybe a 5-10% chance of stopping Romney. Not Newt stopping him, anybody.

          That’s not nothing, but if Romney lost MI, the chances of stopping him were probably over 50/50.

          We don’t know if the Establishment would have helped another candidate enter the Race, or who that would have been. But w/ a fatally wounded Romney, Newt had a heck of a shot of beating Santorum one on one, purely in the sense that he’s just the smarter & more accomplished man.

          Well, that’s all gone now, clowngirl. There it is.

  • Seedyrom

    “Right wing social engineering” is all Romney offers this country. You tools fail to comprehend supporting a fake, a liar and a man who is as hollow as Obama.

  • Pingback: weiterlesen