« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Super Tuesday By The Numbers

Mr. Plurality

The voting is over, and so for the most part is the counting. The delegate math, I leave to others; let’s take a look at how the popular vote has shaped up over the course of this primary season and what conclusions we can draw. First, the overall popular vote before Super Tuesday, on Super Tuesday, and to date.* In addition to listing the candidates’ individual vote totals, I’ve classified them in three groups: the five conservative candidates (Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann and Cain), the two moderate candidates (Romney and Hunstman) and the libertarian (Paul). While there will undoubtedly be some grousing over the use of those labels, I think it’s uncontroversial to note that Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann and Cain all built their campaigns around appealing first to the conservative wing of the party and reaching out from there, while Romney and Huntsman took the opposite approach (and Paul, of course, is in his own category), so this turns out to be a reasonably useful descriptor of how the electorate has broken out between the voters responding to these different appeals. If anything, this overstates the moderate voting bloc, as Romney’s “electability” argument, among other things (including religious loyalties among Mormon voters), has tended in exit polls to draw him some chunk of conservative support.

I. Popular Vote Totals To Date

Pre-3/6Votes % SuperTuesday % TOTAL %
Romney 1,831,177 40.4% 1,404,594 38.1% 3,235,771 39.3%
Santorum 1,082,820 23.9% 996,305 27.0% 2,079,125 25.3%
Gingrich 982,341 21.7% 836,726 22.7% 1,819,067 22.1%
Paul 505,760 11.2% 419,499 11.4% 925,259 11.2%
Huntsman 52,872 1.2% 13,639 0.4% 66,511 0.8%
Perry 29,889 0.7% 13,929 0.4% 43,818 0.5%
Bachmann 14,339 0.3% 5,475 0.1% 19,814 0.2%
Cain 13,603 0.3% 0 0.0% 13,603 0.2%
Conservatives 2,122,992 46.8% 1,852,435 50.2% 3,975,427 48.3%
Moderates 1,884,049 41.5% 1,418,233 38.4% 3,302,282 40.1%
Libertarians 505,760 11.2% 419,499 11.4% 925,259 11.2%
TOTAL 4,535,498 3,690,167 8,225,665

There are three obvious conclusions here. One, Romney is steadily outpolling any one of his individual rivals, cementing his frontrunner status. Two, his frontrunner status derives entirely from the division among his opponents: the conservatives have consistently outpolled the moderates. And three, despite winning his home state of Massachusetts by a 60-point, 220,000 vote margin on Super Tuesday and despite none of the conservatives being on the ballot in Virginia, Romney’s not getting any stronger – even with Perry and Bachmann out of the race and Cain not drawing a single recorded vote, the conservatives drew a majority of the votes on Tuesday. Thus, as Romney pulls away in the delegate race and thus advances closer to being the nominee, he does so over the sustained objections of a near-majority faction of the party. More optimistically, the strength of the conservative vote – even in a year when that vote is fractured and underfunded and the remaining conservative candidates are decidedly subpar – bodes well for conservative candidates who can unify that vote in the future.

Let’s dig deeper below the fold:

* – Excluding the Wyoming Caucus, for which the vote totals are minuscule and there’s no comparable 2008 data. Late-arriving votes are still being tallied in some of the Super Tuesday states as well, but the numbers are pretty close to final everywhere. Also, vote totals (including minor candidates) were only available for some states, whereas in others I just added up the people I had data for, thus the totals don’t completely match up.

II. State By State

STATE Conservatives Moderates Libertarians
GA 67.3% 26.2% 6.6%
TN 62.5% 28.4% 9.1%
OK 62.1% 28.3% 9.6%
SC 59.0% 28.0% 13.0%
MO 57.7% 25.8% 12.2%
MN 55.7% 16.9% 27.2%
IA 53.2% 25.1% 21.4%
CO 53.2% 34.9% 11.8%
OH 52.2% 38.5% 9.3%
ND 48.2% 23.7% 28.1%
FL 46.1% 46.8% 7.0%
MI 45.9% 42.2% 11.9%
AK 43.4% 32.5% 24.1%
AZ 43.2% 47.3% 8.4%
WA 34.1% 37.6% 24.8%
VT 32.8% 41.8% 25.4%
NV 31.1% 50.1% 18.8%
ME 24.7% 38.0% 36.1%
ID 20.3% 61.6% 18.1%
NH 19.7% 56.1% 22.9%
MA 17.3% 73.1% 9.6%
VA 0.0% 59.5% 40.5%

The conservative bloc has won a majority in nine states, concentrated heavily but not entirely in the South and the caucus states (but including Ohio, where the conservatives drew 52.2% of the vote). Add to that three states where the conservative bloc formed a plurality, including Michigan. By contrast, the moderates have drawn a majority in five states – two New England states, two caucus states with large Mormon populations, and Virginia – and a plurality in five others, including two more New England states and Arizona, which also has a significant Mormon population. Only Florida, where Romney poured vast financial resources into the notorious 65-to-1 ad advantage over Newt Gingrich (the only opponent on the airwaves), did the moderates come close to a majority outside of Romney’s most natural home turf.

III. Primaries vs Caucuses

I’m on record as far back as 2008 believing that caucuses should be abolished, and that the ability to win primaries is much more indicative of general election strength than winning more sparsely-attended and often unrepresentative caucuses. It’s worth examining how the votes break down by type of election:

(Click to view full size)

Mitt Romney, in 2008, was largely a creature of the caucuses; with his money and the unity and organization of his Mormon support, he won eight caucuses while winning only three primaries, in his home states of Massachusetts, Michigan and Utah. That’s been inverted in 2012, although Romney fared much better in the Super Tuesday caucuses than he had before yesterday, undoubtedly owing in part to heavy Mormon support in Idaho and Alaska.

This time around, it’s been Rick Santorum who relied heavily on the caucuses (where he could overcome his financial constraints by relying on cohesive religious conservative communities); although Santorum has broken out of that box in the Missouri, Michigan and Ohio primaries, only in Tennessee and Oklahoma has he won significantly contested primaries. Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich continues to draw nearly twice as much support in primaries as caucuses, reflecting a campaign that is not well-organized and draws on older voters unified by ideology rather than religion. But the real story of the caucuses is Ron Paul, who regularly draws twice as much support in caucus states as primary states, where the larger electorate more easily drowns out his band of committed activists.

IV. Turnout and 2008 vs 2012
(Click to view full size)

Note here that Idaho switched from a primary in 2008 to a caucus in 2012, dramatically reducing turnout; not coincidentally, it’s the only state so far where Ron Paul drew fewer votes than in 2008. Romney, meanwhile, has seen his vote share vs. 2008 dramatically lifted by his showing in states like Ohio and Virginia that didn’t vote last time until after he had withdrawn from the race. Also note that Washington last time held both a caucus and a primary, which explains why the caucus was much more heavily attended this year. Ohio figures from 2008 are a little iffy because two sets of numbers were reported. What you can see from this chart is that, aside from states where he didn’t run last time. Romney really has only grown his vote totals from four years ago in a couple of states where he went all-out spending money (or, as in South Carolina, where there was a particularly large, up-for-grabs McCain vote). The fact that Romney drew fewer votes than four years ago in ten different states, as the frontrunner against an arguably weaker field, does not inspire confidence.

Overall, turnout has not been impressive outside of South Carolina, Michigan and Ohio and a couple of the smaller electorates. Note that South Carolina was the one state where the conservative vote really came together behind a single, non-hometown candidate; like the fact that Newt’s and Rick Perry’s highest showings in the national polls were the highest of any of the candidates, this is indicative of the fact that there’s a lot of untapped enthusiasm out there for a candidate who can unite and excite the various components of the conservative base of the party. Newt wasn’t able to sustain that any more than Perry was, but there’s no doubt that both pursued a path to the nomination that had a higher ceiling than that of an unexciting moderate or a religious conservative.

V. Where Do We Go From Here?

As I noted at the outset, Romney hasn’t – yet, at least – shown the kind of growing share of the vote that would characterize a frontrunner who is sealing the deal. From here the race moves to Kansas (as well as Guam, the Virgin Islands and the Northern Marianas) on March 10, and Alabama, Mississippi and Hawaii (as well as American Samoa) on March 13; other than Hawaii, these are likely to be much more friendly territory for Santorum and Gingrich than Romney (Paul may do well in Kansas, which holds a caucus). Missouri holds its caucus on the 17th, Louisiana its primary on the 24th. On the other hand, we have two primaries that are likely to heavily favor Romney – Puerto Rico, where he’s been endorsed by popular Governor Luis Fortuno, on March 18, and Illinois, which has a fairly liberal Republican electorate long accustomed to settling for moderates, on March 20. My guess is that we won’t really begin to see momentum – Romney starting to finally pull away in the popular vote, as opposed to winning tight pluralities in competitive states while each candidate wins the states more naturally favorable to them – until we get into the winner-take-all votes in April, partcularly Wisconsin (which should naturally be competitive) and Pennsylvania (which should naturally heavily favor hometown favorite Santorum).

Is that a good thing? I think thus far, it’s been important for the primary to keep going, because (1) until yesterday, there remained a path to victory for other candidates, and the voters need to know that the race won’t be ended prematurely by backroom deals rather than by acts of the voters, (2) it forces Romney to work for conservative support and become a better candidate, and (3) it sends a message to the party establishment that Romney-style candidates who are long on money and short on reliable principles will not go down without an expensive and laborious fight.

Like Erick and Neil, I think Romney’s narrow wins in Florida, Michigan and now Ohio have cemented him in a position where it’s all but certain that he’ll be the nominee, and as I said before, I think Michigan was the last hope for a new entrant in the race. For reasons (2) and (3) above, I don’t see a lot of harm in continuing the campaign through the rest of March until we are 100% certain of that fact, as it gives additional states the chance to register their objections to the frontrunner and put Santorum through the final paces of seeing if he can find one last way to knock Romney off his pedestal. Newt, despite gaining some delegates yesterday and a moral victory in his home state of Georgia, no longer has much to accomplish in this race besides a protest candidacy.

There’s a three-week break between the April 3 primaries in Wisconsin, Maryland and DC and the next set of primaries. My guess is that if Romney can win Wisconsin, it will be a lot harder for Santorum to justify continuing, and if he folds his tent, Newt and Paul will no longer have a race to show up for. Given how Wisconsin has been Ground Zero for many of the leading political battles of the past two years, that could be the real end of things, and if not, it will come with Pennsylvania, New York, Rhode Island, Delaware and Connecticut on April 24.

But whenever the verdict of the delegate race becomes final, the voters have already spoken, and their message is clear: this is still the conservatives’ party, awaiting only the right leader to unite it.

COMMENTS

  • usedtobelib

    That the other candidates are MORE capable of winning, when they can’t even win in their own party.

    STOP THIS INSANITY, please.

    Do you understand that you (those who hate Romney) don’t even have enough of what you evidently call “conservatives” in _your _own _party to beat what you call a moderate?

    How the hell do you think this illusory ghost of a conservative would win the general?

    You think there are millions and millions of as yet unseen and unheard conservatives out there in the hinterlands and on the coasts? Just waiting to vote for this ideal candidate of yours, this person who has not announced he or she want to run, this person no one knows, this person who doesn’t exist?

    Your position is pathetic.

    • usedtobelib

      very conservative should ask yourself what has happened that this occurred:

      Results for Alaska Republican Caucus (U.S. Presidential Primary)
      Mar 06, 2012 (100% of precincts reporting)
      Mitt Romney 4,285 32.4%
      Rick Santorum 3,860 29.2%
      Ron Paul 3,175 24%
      Newt Gingrich 1,865 14.1%
      Other 34 0.3%

      Maybe what you ought to be asking yourselves is, “What have conservatives done or not done that has resulted in GOP voters turning away from them”?

      Do some self-examination for once instead of blaming the “establishment.”

      Are there spokespersons for the right (Palin, Rush, whoever) that are turning off people? What, what besides the “establishment” might be in part responsible?

      • Kyle-MI

        While his background as MA Gov was moderate, Romney is not running as a moderate. What are his moderate current positions? Can you point to any place in his official campaign where he is emphasizing his moderate past?

        Huntsman could be pegged as a moderate based on his positions and statements during the campaign, but that is not true of Romney.

        Romney may be attracting some moderates, but he is not making any efforts to do so. You cannot characterize all of his supporters as moderates.

        • GregInFla

          Anything more moderate/liberal than that? That’w Romney’s quote from Univ of New Hampshire speech.

          • Kyle-MI

            What is the date on that quote?

            Even if current, one quote or position does not make you a moderate. You can cherry pick from any candidate and find one quote or position that can be characterized as moderate.

      • Repair_Man_Jack

        In what way do you believe Rush has turned people off. It couldn’t be the language. Bill Maher is being taken out on the road as a Dem Party fundraiser this fall. I’m sure you have no troubles with him whatsoever.

        • usedtobelib

          Rush to, people who can’t stand Obama because they believe he’s arrogant (and they voted for him), who haven’t listened to him with me for an hour and said, “God, so extreme.”

          These are the people whose votes we have_to _have_ to win. There are NOT enough of really far right Americans to win the White House. The country is fiscally conservative, right of center, but they can’t stand the idea of a party that makes judgement about their personal choices. That’s Santorum. They are barely right of center. People here are not “barely” right of center.

          They think Newt is not suited for the Presidency in attitude or personality. Note, I know you are enough a reader of the polls to know that Americans say Obama is “likeable” and Newt is not. That’s just the way it is. There is no changing that. And they don’t want a college professor. That’s just the way it is.

          You guys are tilting at windmiills and if, God forbid, Barry wins re-election, I will hold you just as responsible as the candidate because SCOTUS is at stake.

          I will, by God, be happy with a country that is returned to the center or barely right of center rather than taken to the extreme LEFT with another 4 years of Obama.

          • Viet71

            Have observed that calm, polite, rational discourse works best on Redstate. As in real life.

            Although fireworks can be fun to watch.

          • usedtobelib

            by someone who thinks Reagan is God yet follows none of Reagan’s examples about how to treat other Republicans, by someone who pretends to think “pathetic” is a vulgar term..

          • Aaron Gardner

            Have fun lying though.

          • usedtobelib

            Gardner, the one which gives my two original quotes and your response.

          • Viet71

            Don’t want to be your coach. You have some good ideas. Would that you temper your tone.

            Another suggestion is to serve a year in a combat zone.

          • usedtobelib

            “lacking strength.”

            That is what I find to be the word which best describes just more attempts to tell us why Romney’s victories evidently need to be placed in quotation marks, as if they aren’t victories at all.

            Such a post gives rise to the comment and arguments of a poster such as flapjackmaka, who is representative of those who say the winner of a primary is not a winner at all.

            Using such logic (which reminds me of the word games Lefties use), I can argue that the final score of the last Super Bowl doesn’t mean at all that the NY Giants won the championship of the NFL.

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            if, God forbid, Barry wins re-election, I will hold you just as responsible as the candidate because SCOTUS is at stake.

            I’ll be held personally responsible? Well, perhaps if you didn’t have the personality of a sex-starved farret that would concern me. You are a legend in your own mind.

          • wbuoni

            So if I am unwilling to “get in line” and support an empty suit, whom by the way I believe will be disastrous for the Conservative movement, then whatever follows is “all my fault”?

            How about the establishment Republicans, who look and act a lot like Democrats to me, who got behind this loser? Come on, take away Romney’s huge monetary advantage and he doesn’t get past Florida.

            Romney is our “John Kerry”. He is a plastic scripted candidate with absolutely no principles or core. He batters his opponents, out spending 5-1 to smear them, and the Mittbots whine that he is damaged in the process.

            I have voted Republican in every election since 1981 with one exception, and I never miss a vote. This is the worst candidate the Republican’s have run in my lifetime. He looks, acts and smells like a liberal to me, no matter what his handlers have scripted for him to say. No way I ever vote for someone like that … I’ll write in Mickey Mouse before I do that!!

        • salemst

          Rush turned me off as a 20 year listener. How? His incessant lying about Romney and his record. IMO, Rush’s blatant political prejudice against Romney–a guy he supported against McCain in 2008–dropped his accuracy rating from 99.6% to 39,2%. One lie after another. One mischaracterization after another.

          And when you have enough of Rush’s lying about Romney–I live in Massachusetts and know Romney’s record far better than Rush or Rush’s “Research Team”–you stop listening. Haven’t listened to Rush since last December. I thought he wasn’t taking sides as he’d “unduly influence the outcome.” What happened to him? And to lie to win his point, reprehensible.

          Romney did a far better jobs in Massachusetts than Reagan did in California, yet Ronmey is a pariah and Reagan cannonized. Mitt Romney, if elected, will be a better president than Reagan, Too bad Rush’s poisonous hatred prevented him from seeing. But millions of his listeners did, and voted with their feet. Including this one.

          • http://www.baseballcrank.com Dan McLaughlin

            Hahahahahahahahaha.

            I know why you’d say that, I just don’t know why you’d expect anyone to believe it.

          • streiff

            this particular bit of asshattery.

            I’d suggest you take this as a warning.

      • floridaveteran

        Rick Santorum 3,860 29.2%
        Ron Paul 3,175 24%
        Newt Gingrich 1,865 14.1%
        Conservative 8,900 67.3%

        • lapert

          In Ohio 76% of voters were Conservative – and 36% of those voted for Romney. The notion that all conservatives vote for the other 3 candidates, and all who vote for the other three candidates are conservative is not rooted in any actual facts.

          • GregInFla

            If Romney can only get 36% of the Conservative vote, he’ s in trouble in the general.

          • lapert

            It is pretty absurd that people have such a hard time understanding the difference between the primary and the general election.

            You are certainly right, if he only gets 36% of the Conservative vote he is in trouble – but of course, given who is on the ballot in the general what do you think the odds of that are?

            And, that has nothing to do with my argument which is simply that assuming that all conservatives voting in the republican party are not voting for Romney or that all people voting for other candidates are conservative is simply false.

          • GregInFla

            Would an independent (or self-denying liberal, same thing) not vote for Santorum in the general but instead vote for Obama, because of Santorum’s perceived social/religious views? If that independent honestly looked at Obama’s views on the same issues (Obama would kill abortion-survivors and force the government’s secular environment-cetric religion on the people) there is no way that said independent can be expected to vote for Obama instead of Santorum if that person is truly “independent”.

          • GregInFla

            The only person who has claimed the power over what healthcare anyone CAN get (not what is provided free) is Barrack Hussein Obama, along with his comrade Kathleen Sebeilus. Not Rick Santorum.

          • lapert

            I really don’t know what point you are trying to make or what on earth it has to do with the GOP primary electorate’s ideology and voting preferences.

          • steve962

            You assume said independent would necessarily vote for Obama.

            Romney may only win 36% of the Conservative vote in the Primary, but I can’t see any of those self-identified conservatives who didn’t vote for him actually crossing over and voting for Obama instead. They’ll either vote for him or not vote at all. Many of them will vote for him as they feel anyone is better than Obama.

            The same cannot be said about Santorum and moderates. Many moderates, and nearly all libertarians, faced with Santorum in the general, will find his big government social authoritarianism as anathema, and many of them *will* vote for Obama because, in their view, Santorum would be worse. Others (like myself, who finds Santorum and Obama equally, and abysmally, bad choices), will probably turn towards third parties, or even write in candidates. Most of the rest will probably not vote at all – Santorum is highly unlikely to get more than a tiny fraction of moderate votes – which is exactly how he lost his Senate seat.

            Looking at the numbers from the primaries, we see the motivated voters – the ones who actually got out and voted in the primaries and are likely to do so again in the general, to be almost evenly split between conservatives and moderates/libertarians. So do the math — Does Romney, who can probably take a large portion of moderates and libertarians in the general, and still draw support, if not full support, from the conservatives have a better chance of Obama, or does Santorum, who can draw ONLY from the conservatives have a better chance.

            It looks pretty obvious to me. (Although, IMHO, even Romney’s chances of winning the general are slim…)

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      Go ahead and refute his data. Can you do better than name-calling?

      • usedtobelib

        you want to go back and install Al Gore as President because of the DATA!

        With every passing day, you denialists are making it harder and harder on the ultimate nominess to get Barack Obama out of office.

        • Repair_Man_Jack

          Al Gore was ultimately defeated because of the data. No matter how many times he counted Fl votes, he still lost in the EC.

          Denialists. With every passing day, your arrogance is making it harder for anyone with an IQ above room temperature to consider wanting to actually work to elect your candidate.

          • usedtobelib

            But surely you, as I, got sick of hearing that Gore was the choice of MOST Americans.

            Look. The data say that Romney has more delegates than the others. You want to change the rules of the game now. The Dems did when Gore won the pop. vote.

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            After he got caught demanding that that poor message therapist release his chakra, many liberals probably had a secret gratitude towards the confused voters of Florida.

            Imagine the cognitive dissonance they must have felt…

      • gumbojuice

        There were many conservatives who voted for Romney and many liberal Democrats who voted for Santorum.

        You can’t just lump every Romney voter as “moderate” and combine Santorum and Gingrich voters as all conservatives.

        This was a hack job, not analysis.

        • dajeeps

          Santorum is socially conservative, but big government everything else. I’m the opposite, placing economics and free markets ahead of everything else in politics, pretty much classical liberal for the rest.

          Even Gingrich likes more government than I really want. But I support him because of his economic plan, and I can follow the golden thread of logic when he talks about our problems and his proposed solutions. The one exception is his plan for $2.50/gal gas in a year seems a bit out there.

          Romney, I don’t really have any use for because his economic plan is rather convoluted and nebulous, has no principle behind it, and therefore, doesn’t really make much sense to me. Perhaps that is what being “moderate” is all about, doing things because they are popular, but it seems that much of the time, the right things to do aren’t always going to be the popular things to do.

          So, Gingrich is really the only pick left in the race for me, considering the things I think are important for government to be working on. The rest just seems like a big circus.

        • lesstressrx

          The sad thing is, most people haven’t vetted Santorum enough to know he is not a fiscal conservative. He is and always has been a big spender. Ron Paul called it right, he is a fake. People are voting for Romney because all the media are telling them that he is the only one that can beat Obama, which just isn’t true. Moderates will vote for Romney. Most of the Governors are behind him. Why?, they are also moderates or RINO’s. This country is going to have to get much worse fiscally, and I suspect it will, before Americans understand that these seasoned career politicians don’t care what we think. This election is to rid ourselves of Obama. I pray to God Romney can do that. He will have the toughest time. He calls himself a businessman and has some success there, but he doesn’t have a clue what is waiting for him in Washington. Newt is the only one that really can hit the floor running on day one and it doesn?t look like he is going to be given a chance. God Bless us all especially if you aren?t among the very rich.

        • http://www.sourceoftitle.com skymutt

          And, is Romney a “moderate”? He just called himself “severely conservative” and he has taken mostly conservative positions in the campaign. Why do Rick and Newt get to be put in the category in which they would put themselves, but not Mitt?

      • tzp3rs

        This writer has Idaho as 61% moderate. Idaho, moderate? Idaho is a very conservative state. The only reason he lists Idaho moderate is because Romney won 61% of the vote. Why did Romney win? Because he’s mormon. If a conservative mormon had been in the race (like Mike Lee from Utah) Romney would have lost. This data may be accurate, but the analysis is flawed.

    • Aaron Gardner

      n/t

      • usedtobelib

        Public school teacher for 35 years, a person willing to drop the illusions of leftist teachings from my Boomer education, a convert, a vote for the GOP, a love of Antonin Scalia, but a “prick.”

        God, you sound like an Ed Shultz, Keith Olberman type of guy. And I thought I had left the tactics of the Left and the manners of the Left behind 15 years ago.

        You surely never learned any lessons of Reagan although you are the type who screams Reagan is your hero. You do him a great diservice.

        • Aaron Gardner

          No, I think prick was the correct call.

          • usedtobelib

            Since I am a woman and you called me a “prick,” and I gave you a chance to reconsider your language and you didn’t, let me address you forever more, Mr. Gardner, as a Cunt.

          • Aaron Gardner

            .

          • usedtobelib

            You issued a vulgarity that goes against the policies of this blog, and as long as you do that, I will have to return in kind to show that bullying is never persuasive.

            Can you deny that you and others are in a state of denial? That you are grasping at straws and that doing so is hurting whatever chance the GOP has of taking back the WH from Obama?

          • Aaron Gardner

            If you feel you have a valid complaint, feel free to hit the contact form and make your case.

          • Aaron Gardner

            ..

          • usedtobelib

            My words:

            “Stop this insanity, please.”

            “Your position is pathetic.”

            You can read.

            The noun “insanity” clearly referred to his argument. The second statement states it’s his “position” I find to be “pathetic,” yet you countered with charges that. “I guess I could have gone with ‘pathetic’ or, implied you are insane.”

            I didn’t call anyone “pathetic” or “insane” and you_ know_ it.

          • Aaron Gardner

            I think you are acting like a prick.

            I do not think you are actually, physically a prick.

            Mostly because pricks don’t have hands and therefore can’t use a keyboard to type.

          • CrabCakes

            Wow. I’m a dirty liberal hippy, and even I don’t use that word.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            with the executive director of the AL Democratic Party who, on behalf of said party, refused to denounce Bill Maher’s use of the same word you uttered or its association with Bill Maher’s upcoming concert.

            Imagine my shock at your nasty response. Regardless of the offense you’ve taken at Aaron’s characterization, you’ve demeaned yourself, not him.

            And by the way, I’d personally like to ask you to refrain from your casual use of “God” in a way that is taking his name in vain.

          • celador2

            Even if Romney wins the nomination and WH he will not be able to abolish the hard right across the land from where the rank and file make meaning and elect candidates. Romney will run RNC and put his stamp on the Party as all presidents have done. But not the footprint. That we make across the land.

            Be patient, Patience is a virtue based on strength, savvy and faith. Conservatives can hold on and next time get it right. We came a long way already.

          • streiff

            have fun some other place

          • CarolT

            Get lost. Aaron ban her for the language.
            Carol

          • vandalii

            The enemy is at the gates and you’re spending your efforts ripping up each other. That’s just what the libs love to see. Don’t give them the satisfaction!
            Geez.

    • renl57

      Several such persons exist.

      The problem is that it’s very difficult for a dark horse nominee–pulled out of the air as the convention approaches or gets underway–to win the Presidency.

      It hasn’t happened since Harding in 1920.

      So even if there were a brokered convention, the nominee would still be Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum. Any other choice would doom the ticket anyway.

    • driveinkid

      The behavior of the punditocracy in this campaign has been abominable. It is a tribute to Romney’s STRENGTH that he is leading. The entire blogosphere, the Democrats and the heavy hitters in Conservative media have been pushing Romney’s rivals for months.

      This ERASES his supposed advantage from running “negative ads” and “outspending his opponents”. Despite this, Mitt continues to win, spectacularly making up big deficits in MI and OH.

      In my mind that destroyed Santorum’s rationale for continuing right there. Those rust belt voters were supposed to be his “sweet spot”. In both states it was made closer because DEMOCRATS came out for Rick in order to cause mischief.

      Rick, Newt and the Conservative media are HURTING the party by allowing this nonsense to continue. Looking at the electoral math, Rick would need to start getting 60% of the remaining delegates from this point forward in order to prevail. The math for Newt is impossible. For Palin, Rush, Levin and others who shall remain nameless to be ENCOURAGING this to continue is absurd.

      Polls have shown that Mitt has the best chance against Obama. We need to cut the ridiculous infighting and coalesce around him SOON. A brokered convention would be a sure loser for us if that is what Rick and Mitt are fantasizing about.

      • The_Gadfly

        this campaign would have ended on Tuesday. I hear a lot of Romneybots telling us we should all stop with the negativity and unite behind the only guy who can beat The Big 0. They conveniently ignore the scortched earth policy he’s conducted against every other conservative candidate. Both he and you can try to hide behind the meme that the PACs are independent and thus not controlled by him, but we all understand there are wink, wink, nudge, nudge methods for coordinating such expenditures. The most obvious wink, wink, nudge nudge is the failure of the candidate himself to denounce the scorched earth ads. After a while, it all starts to sound quite like the left whining because Rush called their spokewoman a slut while ignoring that their heros have called some of our leaders c**ts.

      • wbuoni

        Been a Republican my entire life. I think Obama is a total disaster of a President, but I still could never pull the lever for a man I consider to be a plastic pandering fraud. Romney has supported pro-choice, gun control, universal healthcare, the welfare state, etc. Why do I care if he loses in November?

        • http://www.democratsforsale.blogspot.com soonermom

          Couldn’t agree more. Add in the scorched earth against other candidates and you have the basic reason I will NEVER vote for Romney. RNC can tell me how important it is to defeat Obama but they should have thought of that before trying to rig this primary for Romney starting with all the debates by liberal moderators.

          Received a post to my blog calling me and the people of Red State bigots for not supporting Romney. Was a bigot in 2008 for going against Obama and in 2012 for going against Romney. Some of the supporters of both men are way over the top. With the proportioning of delegates now Romney has more delegates out of Oklahoman then he should. Yet Florida who voted early was winner take all because the Chair of the RNC didn’t want to punish them more. Execuse me but how is that punishment? Why is FL treated differently than OK?

          If you want to look at one organization that needs to change the way the Chairman is chosen along with the committee which is made up of people who can afford to pay their own way, then look no further than the RNC which has been useless except to mess things up for sometime. In 2000 the Chair favored McCain over Bush and this year it is clear that the Chair is the mouthpiece of the establishment Rockefeller Republicans to support Romney.

    • ihateliberals

      When Romney is in a truely conservative state he can’t win. The conservatives are not the ones giving him his victories. I the candidates could decide on one of the conservatives inthe party whether it is Santorum or Gingrich etc Romney wil be out the door. During the primaries in the states that are open Romney win’s because of the Liberal voters but when you move to where the primaries are cclosed or the state was a red state in 2008 and 2010 Romney can hack it. Now this is what will happen during the General election and you can laugh at me if you like but unfortunately if i am right we all as Americans will lose in November and it doesn’t matter who wins the presidency. The GOP has alienated the Republican conservatives, Democratic conservatives, Tea Party conservatives and conservative independents. This is a huge voting block. Now the problem comes inthat many of this group will not vote for Obama but they won’t vote period. If this happens Romney will not have a prayer of entering the White house other than a guest. Romney’s only draw will be Liberal Republicans, Moderates and some Mormons. This will not get him elected. BTW — the only reason he won Idaho last Tuesday is the Mormon vote there. Unlike myself some of the Mormons are voting for Romney merely because he is a Mormon. I am a Mormon but I also am a very strict conservative. His religion doesn’t glaze over my eyes. What does stimulate me thoughis he is the original architect of Obamacare which is the most enslaving legislation ever enacted by a congress of the United States. The founding fathers must be rolling in their graves. If anyone thinks that Romney would repeal this law then you have been duped by the Romney lying machine. I have a dog that is more conservative than Romney is and the dog has been dead for 10 years. may God protect us from these people that know not what they do.

      • jamesm

        when it comes to this election. Just because Romney likes his colld cereal to make him sleep at night, we need a guy who likes liver.

  • SteveM

    Look, people keep complaining about Mitt and his “electability myth”. But what is the guy doing? He keeps winning. When he doesn’t win, he finishes in second place. Santorum came as close as he did in Michigan thanks to Operation Chaos votes there and evidently something similar in Ohio.

    The site doesn’t like Romney. Fine. But continuing to attack the man in the face of him racking up wins and states isn’t helping anybody.

    He’s been running a general election campaign thus far. When/if he gets the nomination there won’t need to be any tacking in any direction. He’ll just hit the ground running.

    • streiff

      When he doesn?t win, he finishes in second place.

      • SteveM

        …and that’s fine. The point was, Mitt is doing very well even in these deeply conservative states. But what happens when we get into New York, California, New Jersey, etc.? Those states aren’t going Santorum.

        For whatever reason, Romney between 2008 and now peed in RedState’s cornflakes. I don’t know why. It’s not really relevant.

        The only data that matters thus far are these:

        1. Romney, despite being crapped on by a lot of conservatives, just keeps winning.
        2. These electable conservative standard bearers haven’t so far demonstrated the ability to beat him in more than a few states.

        • flapjackmaka

          Romney’s winning has to do with a money advantage that dragged down everyone else not to mention increasing his own negatives with independents because constant robocalling has its limits. This advantage is gone against Obama. Romney isnt winning NY or Ca in the general. By your argument, Obama will win Texas because he won the primary there. I remember before the primaries that mittbots were hollering that if Palin ran she would win the nomination and lose. But now Mitt is winning primaries he is electable? Today Mittens said that presidents are not responsible for the gas pump. The guy has lost all elections of his life except for one. That is not what I call electability or winning. He is a terrible candidate with terrible flaws and has only won by sticking to script in debates and forcing money down peoples throats through robocalls and ads. It’s no wonder he makes VERY FEW media appearences. Everytime Mittens makes an appearence he sticks his feet into his mouth. So much for using gas prices against Obama now.

          Good luck storming the castle with Mittens!

          • SteveM

            I never said, nor presented in logic that Mitt would win CA or NY in the general.

            The rest of your post, come on.

            I’ll just ask you this: If Romney is so horrible, and the rest of the field is so awesome, then why is Mitt able to outraise the others by such a wide margin?

          • usedtobelib

            This money advantage about which anti-Romneys harp, and which is, to be sure, real.

            Why is it that none of our other candidates, from Bachmann and Pawlenty in the early stages to Santorum and Gingrich now, haven’t been able to do well in the money category?

            Poor organization and planning from the beginning? If so, that doesn’t speak well of someone we wish to be able to run a good Presidential campaign against Obama.

            Not appealing enough to GOP voters to get the small and large donations needed? Doesn’t speak well of their vote-getting appeal in their own party.

          • driveinkid

            Mitt’s money advantage allows him to run negative ads, destroying his challengers, do I have the story right? There are 4 problems with that narrative.

            1. If Santorum and Newt can be beaten by ads, they are weak, Newt came at Romney from the left with a 30 minute documentary about Bain that was a pack of lies. No complaints about that?

            2. Why does Romney have all of this money? More supporters I would guess,

            3. Mitt has been attacked by Conservative pundits and media figures for months. There are leading voices who are openly pushing Mitt’s rivals and completely overlooking their negatives in order to undermine Mitt. I would posit Mitt has no media advantage as a result.

            4. Supposedly “regular Republicans” don’t like negative ads anyway so I would doubt that is the foundation for Mitt’s support.

    • http://www.baseballcrank.com Dan McLaughlin

      by definition; 50% of all candidates who win a major party nomination lose the general election. Heck, all Christine O’Donnell did in the primary was win.

      That’s not to say winning is meaningless, but do not assume that the ability to win at this stage means that Romney’s a strong candidate. As I note above, where he has won, it has often been by doing things that cannot be replicated in the general election.

      • SteveM

        I don’t buy that Romney is a weak candidate. By what standard?

        The economy? Mitt >>>> Obama. On every issue.
        Foreign policy? Obama’s adopted all of Bush’s policies. All any of us have to do is point that out.
        Socially? Does Mitt represent some position that you don’t like?

        This deserves its own diary, but I’ll put it here: 270towin.com. Consider the baseline map with the swing states unallocated.

        Putting Bozo the Clown on the ballot gets us IN and MO. Obama’s not winning either of those.

        Mitt will run well in VA. NC will go Mitt because conservatives there will turn out to get rid of Obama. Bank those states.

        Mitt is strong in Florida. FL is THE most critical state this time out – there’s virtually no scenario for us winning without it.

        How about New Hampshire? I think they turn out for Romney and he wins it.

        Mitt will also get us NV. The large Mormon population + general disgust with Obama in Vegas will seal the deal.

        So where do we stand? That’s 258EV’s. If Mitt is on the ballot…Michigan and its 16 EVs are in play. Win that and he hits 274 and the Presidency. Note that’s *without* Ohio and Pennsylvania. Also that’s without Colorado and Iowa.

        • flapjackmaka

          Mitt is hated in Ohio. And dont use the argument he won the primary. Because Obama has won EVERY state primary.

          NV, IA, and MI are going to Obama. MI isnt going anywhere and it’s delusional to think so. Have you seen the state polls? Mittens gets blown out in each one!
          Mitt today said Presidents are not responsible for the gas pump and Obama has agreed with Mitt on every single issue, so it’s not like anyone cares what Mitt says

          • SteveM

            NV to Obama? Why? Ever been there? There are a ton of Mormons there and conservatives. You think they like Obama in Vegas? No way, buddy.

            The above also assumes Mitt doesn’t need Iowa. Mitt is the best chance we have at MI, so your concerns apply equally there.

            BTW: “Mittens” is what the libs call Romney. Don’t lower yourself to their stinking level.

          • flapjackmaka

            is a term Romney’s people crafted last time. It’s his fault.

          • Scope

            don’t they now? Is it because he’s a Democrat, or is it because he’s a mormon? I’d put high dollars on the fact that he is a Democrat taking care of all those tons of union workers that love Democrats. Democrats all the way buddy in Vegas. BTW, isn’t something like 80-90% of the NV geography now owned by the federal government because Harry gave it all away to them?

          • SteveM

            Was at the Reno air races a few years ago. The announcer had a bunch of dignitaries on the tarmac right before it kicked off. Crowd is more or less listening.

            First up – the announcer introduces Admiral So-and-so, Commander of Such and Such. Polite applause.

            Next up: Reno’s Mayor. More polite applause.

            Then…Nevada’s governor. Crowd cheers a bit.

            Then the announcer says, “And now I’d like to welcome a very special guest…Col. Mark Tillman!”

            You could hear the crowd murmur, “Who is that guy?”

            The announcer breaks it up with, “Colonel Tillman was President Bush’s Air Force One Pilot!”

            The crowd went nuts. Here’s a link of them at the race:
            http://speakingeagles.com/reno-national-championship-air-races-honors-military/

            Nevada is more red than you think it is :)

          • SteveM

            Kind of odd for him to be “hated” there, and yet win the place, wouldn’t you say?

          • usedtobelib

            Well, according to you, a person who wins a primary is not a winner.

            Hmm. Using that as a guide, how do we determine “winners”?

            And the losers? How do we determine them?

            This Novermber, when one candidate gets more electoral votes than the other, do we crown the other one the winner?

            Up is down; down is up. It’s Alice in Wonderland.

          • flapjackmaka

            Yeah. When one candidate gets over 270, it’s the winner. The point of elections is to ELECT SOMEONE TO AN OFFICE. The losers are people who dont get into office. I’m just a regular Dick Tracey now. There is no office for primary winners, sorry, And Mitten’s track record is terrible on elections.
            Stop trying to jump through logic hoops, it looks idiotic.

          • flapjackmaka

            He is a shoo in there! Your logic is like swiss cheese. Stop it. I’ve been to Vegas many times. It’ll go Obama.
            Obama’s poll numbers are higher in NV and Ohio and Mitt isnt attacking him with as much force as we need too. Obama is up by double digits in Ohio. The presdient doesnt “priciesly set the gas price” is just an example at his ineptitude.
            Mitt may be our best chance at MI but he is losing by 16 there to Obama according to a poll in February. Good luck trying to win states, that will never show up for Romney. I bet you think Romney can win NJ too. I remember how the libs thought Kerry would win Georgia and the carolinas too!.

          • SteveM

            My logic is swiss cheese? Whatever you say.

            Mitt isn’t attacking Obama hard enough? Maybe it’s because he has to fend off people like you. Shouldn’t the other candidates be attacking Obama just as hard?

            The rest of your post, go peddle strawmen elsewhere.

          • floridaveteran

            n/t

          • Scope

            with 1% of the vote after spending $12 million dollars to beat a guy that was running on a shoestring budget. That is pathetic, very weak, and telling.

          • SteveM

            …after being down by double digits in some polls, what? A week earlier?

        • usedtobelib

          and caucuses will win a general election.

          Great logic.

          • demsaresatanic

            the word, at least. Good start.

          • Scope

            It is you that need to lose your delusions. Delusions and logic cannot occupy the same mind. That conundrum seems to have invaded Romney die hards minds. That is unless you have ulterior motives for your support.

            Again, in this thread, we have the Romney supporters coming out in droves with no argument or refutation against any points in the article, that includes all kinds of research. Just attacks against the messenger who dares to stick to the facts. This is getting old and tiresome, and more than a little sickening while we still have a primary going on.

            What’s the difference between a Paulbot and a Romneybot? The Redstaters have been relieved from the idiocy of the Paulbot die hards who can’t make a cogent and/or credible argument to support their candidate.

          • SteveM

            Nobody insulted you. Nobody told you to ride in, guns blazing with your Romneybots stuff.

            I actually don’t mind. We’re all on the same team, even if some/most/all of you are current pi$$ed off about the state of the primaries. I won’t hold it against you. Just show up and vote for Mitt should he win.

        • burke

          Obama WON Indiana and barely lost Missouri. To McCain, who’s more appealing to the base than Romney. Get real. We need to make an effort in those states. Ditto VA and NC, but I imagine Romney will run stronger there than McCain did.

          It’s this type of arrogance that’s going to get Obama 4 more years. This is going to be a hard won fight. Get ready.

          • SteveM

            Okay, 3. First off, sure. It won’t be easy to beat Obama and his illegal credit card machine tactics. He’ll have tons of money and plenty of media air cover.

            Now Indiana. IN is a deep red state. Obama won it last time because McCain basically goofed up and thought he had it in the bag. I knew McCain was screwed when I saw an Obama campaign headquarters in downtown Lafayette, IN (across the river from Purdue University).

            How about now? Daniels is a popular governor who will campaign for our side. The Bamster’s approval rating is something like 42 there and Daniels just signed right to work.

            Missouri? My home state. Remember their Obamacare rejection rate of 4 to 1 or whatever it was?

      • driveinkid

        So your point is what? We should run one of the guys who is losing to Romney because they would have a better shot of beating Obama? Polling consistently has shown that Mitt has the best chance of winning against Obama.

        The interesting thing about his “debate” is the armchair quarterbacks are spending lots of time and effort explaining how Romney might lose but not so much time at all talking about how Santorum or Gingrich can BEAT Obama. One side of the argument without the other is not really too illuminating.

      • greenpoint

        The Ohio primary results prove your point. Santorem won most of the Republican rural vote which got swamped by Romney’s Lake County vote. Lake County is basicly Cleveland. Does anybody think Mitt will carry Cleveland in November against Obama????

    • sulmak

      nt.

  • Brian Darling

    Dan will be on WBAL ( http://www.wbal.com/ ) at 9:30pm tonight to discuss this blog post. Tune in online or in the Baltimore area at AM 1090.

  • miconservative

    I have been extremely critical of Romney on this site, but I can do math. This race is over. However we got here…here we are. It makes absolutely no sense to hope the sky turns green and somehow a great conservative savior arises to save us. It is over.

    Math is math. Whether anyone likes it or not Mitt Romney’s strategy has worked. Those standing in opposition are weak and cannot win a majority of delegates. I think Romney cannot be stopped from winning a majority of delegates. And I also believe a deadlocked convention would be a disaster.

    However much some don’t like it, myself included, it is time to kiss and makeup and get on with the business of defeating Barak Obama. The stakes are too high. I don’t want Obama appointing as many as 3 new Supreme Court justices in a second term, particularly not replacements for Scalia or Kennedy. I want to repeal Obamacare. We need to hold Romney’s feet to the fire on conservative issues, but we also need to make certain he defeats Obama and that begins by joining together and accepting the patently obvious.

    Let’s get to work.

    • SteveM

      We’re all on the same team here. Another 4 years of Obama? The country can’t take this kind of pounding forever.

      How much more debt? How many more Godawful liberal programs would we have? How many more Constitutional Amendments can he violate?

    • jon11

      its simple math at this point.

      i know the party will eventually unite.

      lets do it sooner rather than later and stop giving Obama a free pass.

    • cbartlett

      I am very concerned about where the numbers actually are. It seems like the states where Mitt is winning are states that will go to Obama anyway (very Blue ones) – it just flat doesn’t matter in November that he got delegates at the Republican convention for those states or not. If he is only accepted lukewarmly in states that ought to be Red or are up for grabs, are we setting up to lose in November? If Romney is the nominee, somebody better start figuring out the best way to counteract the class envy mantra. Obama has been slowly setting up to use that against Romney since last year – I fear that he is just waiting for the “official crowning” to unleash the rich-Republicans-hate-you speeches and ad campaigns. Controversy about contraceptives or foreign wars is nothing compared to class envy – the sheeple fall for it every time. We are in for a really nasty fight this fall. Whoopee.

      • drothgery

        I?d break down Romney?s wins to date as
        swing states ? OH, NH, FL, NV
        solid Democrat states ? MA, VT
        lean Democrat states ? MI, WA, ME
        lean Republican states ? AZ, VA
        solid Republican states ? ID, WY, AK

        Now, it?s accurate to say a large part of the case for Romeny?s inevitability is that he?s extremely likely to win a lot of winner-take-all (or winner-take-all by district) states that are solid Democrat states, but that?s in the future for the most part (Vermont is tiny, and every candidate should be expected to win their actual home state ? i.e. the one where they ran for lower office in and/or lived most of their adult life ? by a large margin). Right now, he’s mostly won swing states, but he has also won some solidly Republican states (admittedly small ones) and lean Republican states (both somewhat more significant) to go with democrat-leaning states and solid Democrat states.

  • usedtobelib

    I accepted a very long time ago that he was not going to run. I entertained supporting Perry until I saw what we had or didn’t have in him. I ask all others to consider what miconservative and SteveM say, and let’s get on with beating the stuffing out of the Lefties.

    • earlgrey

      I really think he is what we needed, and I think he would have done better than Romney, but some people here at Red State were really against him in the beginning too. I bet if they could pick now they would prefer Daniels.

      Romney seems like he wants this, but I don’t understand why. I also worry that he just wants the Repubican nomination that he doesn’t have the fight to go farther.

      However, I have to support him, because there is no other alternative. Not supporting him is to give up, and I can’t do that.

      The only shred of optimism I get is a larger sense of people standing up to leftists. That is the only way we will win, is to show that Obama will lead us to utter destruction. We cannot count on Romney winning anyone over. That makes it really tough.

      If by some miracle Romney does win, I’ll view it sort of as a 3rd party winner. Not a real republican. If he loses all bets are off on the future of the Republican party. It will be interesting to watch the Republicans in Congress react to an outraged base.

  • renl57

    It’s not the case that supporters of Santorum would be satisfied with Gingrich or vice versa.

    They don’t overlap. Santorum is a thorough religious conservative on issues of sex and marriage; a devout Catholic isn’t likely to see Gingrich as a credible spokesman for that point of view.

    Gingrich’s strength is his innovative, even visionary, ideas for solving problems. Santorum just isn’t in Gingrich’s league there.

    So even if one of these guys dropped out, it’s not clear that the other guy could unify all conservatives behind him.

    • mcsul

      The NYTimes right now has a neat tool that allows you to cut exit poll data. You can find it off a link on the homepage.

      Summary of data from my quick look at it…

      Romney seems to win all groups except: low education, evangelical, and those who’s primary issue is abortion. He doesn’t necessarily win all of the other groups by a lot, but his support seems to be broad-based, while Santorum’s gets him very heavy advantage only in a few demographics.

      To the point of “many types of conservatives”, you can see that show up when you look at the different groupings. My take on the data is that Romney is getting all the flavors of economic conservative, while Santorum is heavily winning all flavors of social conservative.

    • GregInFla

      I want a POTUS that lets PRIVATE CITIZENS solve the problems as federal government LEAVES the scene.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    You think that if there were only one non-mitt in the race that Romney would lose. But I am not so sure.

    If the non-mitt were a good, viable national candidate maybe so. But Santorum and Gingrich are not. They would not do well at all in the general election. They have said too many things that can be used against them.

    Romney has a shot, (only a shot) of getting rid of the Kleptocracy in power. And that is all that matters to me right now.

  • vastrightwingconspiracy

    …to say “I don’t like Romney.”

    The horse is dead. How many different ways can we say, “far right social conservatives don’t like Romney?” The spreadsheets were a nice touch though.

    I do take exception to the notion that Romney needs to be more conservative to be a “better candidate.” For the primary, perhaps, but then again, all the righties would just double down on the “fake conservative” narrative.

    He’s walking a fine line right now. Getting enough conservatives to win without completely destroying himself for the general.

    • Scope

      you people don’t they. You can’t dispute the data, so you attack the author. About the only thing you creeps can come up with is “he is the only one that can beat Obama” as your default position even though he is now behind Obama even with Independents. Fear is an obnoxious odor that even penetrates computer monitors, and the stench is getting overwhelming. Hell even Krauthammer is saying that Romney is getting weaker by the week, not stronger.

      • vastrightwingconspiracy

        …waaaaaaay to friggin much.

        I didn’t attack anyone. I didn’t point out the obvious bias in his numbers either. I simply said that his long technical “explanation” of the “numbers” was another way of trying to say he doesn’t like Mitt Romney. Romney won the most races/delegates and RS and NG supporters are trying to find hope in the numbers. Is there any other way of looking at it? If I’m wrong, what else is the point?

        Krauthammer? Now, all of the sudden righties are listening to CK?

        I suppose cherry picking pundit statements isn’t any worse than cherry picking data.

        Carry on.

  • gumbojuice

    Did you just make up “conservative” and “moderate” by grouping Romney’s votes as all “moderate” and Santorum+Gingrich as “conservative”?

    What kind of crap is that?

  • califgal

    not banned for calling my mother a prick? She responded to his profanity, but he hurled it first as provocation. Banning is appropriate under blog rules for such usage and she knew it, but the provoker ought to be banned as well if this blog has any integrity.

    I never though conservatives would get this thin-skinned after knowing what we have to fight in November.

    • lineholder

      See how his name is highlighted in green? That’s because he is a moderator for this site. Now if a mod for RS goes to such lengths as to use provocative language, it’s usually meant as a “head’s up” warning to whomever that moderator is responding to that they need to “get a grip” and it needs to be done like….yesterday!

      It’s their prerogative to use this tactic on a private site. If you want to discuss this topic further with them, then it should be done through the contact link.

      • califgal

        diminish Romney’s victories “pathetic” and she called them “insanity” as well. And for that, Gardner called her the p-word.

        That is an over-reaction. If you will not only use an ad hominem attack but one which is profane and vulgar against those posters with whom you disagree, it shows that the moderator has lost a sense of balance and shows an intolerance of opposing view points.

        My mother hurled no names at the writer of the post, as Gardner said she did. Anyone disputing that, go back and look.

        • lineholder

          That is your best chance of addressing this.

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

          I’d also suggest you keep the issue to behavior you observed. As far as what the management may do; that is strictly up to them and there are back channels we don’t have privy to. So again, keep your focus on the observable.

    • EyeofMitt

      I know Aaron is special status or something by the green, but does that allow him to turn RS into a saloon as opposed to a salon. I grew up in a very conservative household and both of those posters should have their mouth washed out with soap (well, not literally).

    • Scope

      personally owned site that gets to set any rules they choose. Have you been around the blogsphere lately califgal? Are you going to call for all of the RS advertisers to abandon RS because someone used a term, and was followed up by an even more gross term used by your mother? Your mother gave in kind, and then some, but you want an important poster on RS to be banned because he dared call your mother exactly what she has been acting like? How bout your mother, as a public school teacher not fighting fire with a bonfire. You see, your mother has proven to be no better, just trying to be louder just as the liberals do every day. So your mom uses a really negative term against a front pager here, and she thinks that because she is a female her language excuses her from her gross comeback. This is the difference between Ingrham being called a slut by the left, and Fluke being called a slut by Rush. Your mother gave one when she got one, she is not a victim in the least. Get over yourself, or at least advise your mother that she can’t be a victim while making others victims. It doesn’t work that way.

      • califgal

        thread–for that, she was called the p-word.

        She responded with the c-word to show him 1) he was wrong in assuming she was a he (point made) and 2) bullying by using profanity doesn’t work.

        Now, you yourself are building straw man diversions which I’kk not bother to which I’ll not bother to respond since they are ot straw men.

        “Your mother gave one when she got one, she is not a victim in the least. ”

        Victim? LOL. My mom hardly considers herself a victim.. If she had, when he called her a “P” she’d have done what a y victim would have done, left with her tail between her legs. Instead, she fought.

        In addition, she asked why she, who responded to a vulgarity, was banned, while the provoker who first used a vulgarity was not. Good, fair question, not yet answered with a good answer because quite frankly, there isn’t a good answer. Truth be told, neither should have been banned or both. That’s the only way that has preserves any integrity.

        What seems to have happened is that poster and diarist Gardner was very angry about one thing, lost his temper and his composure and decency, and took it out on a poster whose opinion he didn’t share.

        No way anyone looking at what she said in that first post would agree he was justified in responding that way.

        If you can’t run a blog w/out accepting differing points of view and if your own posters can’t abide by the rules, it stands to reason no one will have respect for either the blog or its writers.

        I’ve said my piece.

        • Scope

          Your mother gave as good as she got, and then some. I am a woman and I am damn sick and tired of the screaming from the feminazis. They can say what they like, even in response to someone else, but then they damn get their panties in a bunch because a real male challenges them. Get over your feminine outrage, as your mother displayed that she gave as much as she got, but ohhhh wowww is me I’m just a little helpless female who has to cry uncle. Your damn mother wasn’t crying uncle when she resorted to calling Aaron Gardner a “cunt” was she? You feminazis make me want to puke with your double standards. You are trying as hard as you can to make whimps and idiots out of the males of this society. Aaron told your mother that he will remain a male and your mother folded into a feminine fainting couch. If women want to play in the male arean it will take a hell of a lot more strength than folding because someone used the word “prick.” I would suspect that you are one of those calling for Rush to be taken off the air because he used the very same language against Flukle that liberals have been using against conservative women foreverever. Get over your vapors and become a real “woman.”

          • Bill S

            Thank you.

          • califgal

            You didn’t read a thing, did you? Not a thing. You don’t even know the chronology. My mother didn’t fold–she was banned by the very guy who started the fight–some man, he.

            If someone initiated a fight, called you a “P,” would you not stick up for yourself and expect that the person who said it wouldn’t turn into a wimp and ban you for what he had done himself.

            Who’s the feminazi, by the way?

          • Bill S

            I repeat: If you have a beef, send a note to contact@redstate.com.

            THE END.

      • vastrightwingconspiracy

        I thought everyone who posted was covered by those, including mods.

        It says right under the box I’m writing in right now: Be respectful, or be banned. No Profanity.

        The last part is even in bold. I’m not defending her, but to defend the mod, who apparently dished it out as well, doesn’t seem equitable.

        Carry on.

        • Bill S

          If anyone here has concerns about member behavior or moderation policy, send them to contact@redstate.com. This is not up for discussion or debate in these diaries.

          Full. Stop.

  • battleground270

    Hey all, started a new political blog with election analysis. Check it out!

    battleground270.blogspot.com

    • acat

      Sweet and Sour SPAM

      1/3 cup sugar
      3 tablespoons corn starch
      3 tablespoons cider vinegar
      2 tablespoons tomato paste
      2 tablespoons soy sauce
      1 tablespoon molasses
      1/2 teaspoon salt
      1/4 teaspoon garlic powder
      1 small onion, diced
      1 green pepper, core removed, diced
      1 SPAM, diced
      1 cup cubed pineapple
      1 cup pineapple juice
      1 cup water

      Mix sugar, corn starch, pineapple juice, water, vinegar, catsup, soy sauce in a skillet.

      Cook over medium heat, stirring constantly, until it bubbles and thickens.

      Stir in pineapple, onion, green pepper, and SPAM.

      Simmer for 10 minutes or until completely heated.

      Serve over brown rice or coconut rice.

      Mew

      p.s. coconut rice? brown rice made using coconut water (NOT coconut milk, too thick!) instead of plain water…

      • texastaxpayer

        :(

        • acat

          Cheshire grin

    • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

      Can’t even manage a workable link.

    • JSobieski

      is to make it look like you aren’t trying to market anything.

      Needless to say, your comment does not qualify as good or even mediorce marketing.

    • Bill S

      when you include the word “spammer” as part of your email address, it’s pretty much a sure bet you’re gonna get whacked.

      Which you did.

      • acat

        A troll well whacked.

        Mew

  • cheetah2

    yes the not Romney votes are divided between 3 people so that makes it look like if there was only one opponent instead of three, Romney would be losing. However is there any proof that if 2 of the dropped out that the voters would move to the one remaining not Romney? Myself I think Romney would benefit as well as his opponent. I am a Gingrich supporter but Romney is my second choice, not Santorum.

    • acat

      And I’m probably going to ignore the POTUS race and focus on other contests if Gingrich is eliminated.

      Mew

      • Scope

        when you posted on another site where you proudly claimed that you would be voting for Romney in the primary and the general there where you live in Ill.. You said that Romney was the one that will gather the conservatives and the Independents together. Do you have dual personalities depending on what website you are posting on?

        • acat

          I don’t see how Romney could “unite” anyone.

          Mew

          • Scope

            to the article where you commented. The post is by a cat, it includes a picture of your cat, it includes the comment that this cat will be voting for Romney in the primary and the general in Illinois. How many a cats are there that post from Ill, and include the picture of their cat, including the signature “Mew”?

            Cat you are welcome to vote for, or support any one you choose to support, no problem. I have a bit of a problem with some that say one thing here at RS, and then something very different somewhere else. It really was kind of a surprise to me that someone who expounds libertarian policies would be all in for Romney. I can’t wrap my arms around that one.

          • acat

            Given the population in Illinois includes twelve million people – 5th largest in the country, half again the number in Virginia – I’m sure there are a few other cats.

            Further, that’s not even close to the same picture… and I use only this picture everywhere I post.

            I have no idea what else to tell you. It’s simply not me.

            Mew

          • westcoastpatriette

            Not only is the picture different, it doesn’t even sound like something acat would say. One thing about the kitty is he is consistently the same. That commenter at the Hill doesn’t meow the same at all.

  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    But separately they split most of the other voters?

    If either of them have egos that would let them combine with the others’ campaign then I’d say they have some humility on display and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

    On the other hand if one/neither of them has the ability or willingness to join with the other to beat Romney then perhaps one/neither should be allowed near being POTUS.

    Not saying Romney would be better or would get elected or that we’re guaranteed the O will win or not, just a thought…

  • celador2

    I saw such a headline today. It makes sense, does it not. Romney exit and allow the other three to compete.

    CA, Texas, and PA are not all in Romney pocket anymore than are southern states coming up.

  • Adjoran

    You actually passed the bar? That says it all, really.

  • greenpoint

    The Ohio primary results prove the point. Santorem won most of the Republican rural vote which got swamped by Romney?s Lake County vote. Lake County is basicly Cleveland. Does anybody think Mitt will carry Cleveland in November against Obama????

  • 6t9boss

    After Super Tuesday it is clear that Conservatices have lost and the RINO GOP has won. Newt can not win and neither can santorum, Ron Paul is in bed with Romney so his son can catch a break……it is time for them ALL to step down , give it to Romney so he can atleast have a chance at beating Obama.
    I still say Romney will lose…..just like McCain…the key to victory was not “Independents” it was Conservatives.
    But let’s atleast give Romney time to put the contest behind him and build up a war chest to fight this marxtist Obama.
    The rest of this Primary is a waste of hot air, money and precious time.

  • salemst

    I’m a staunch across the board conservative, one of the few living in Massachusetts. Romney was my governor. I watched his campaign against Kennedy for Senate in 1994 including the infamous Quincy market debate. Watched him in his 2002 Governor’s run, then watched him govern.

    I hate to keep harping on this but you all around the country have to take Romney’s political landscape into perspective when assessing his governance.

    Here are Mitt’s landscape numbers. 145-15 Democrat House, 35-5 Democrat Senate, not enough Republicans to sustain his 842 vetoes, liberal majority state Supreme Court, 42% Democrat, 42% Independent, and 14% registered Republicans in the state.

    Do you all understand what Romney was working against? To accomplish all he did in a 90% Democrat controlled legislature and citizenry composition was this side of amazing. Romney was a ruthless–RUTHLESS–government spending/cost cutter. Ruthless proponent of tax cuts. Fought hard against homosexual marriage and abortion rights expansion. Yes, he gave us Romneycare. I opposed it, but majority of Massachusetts citizens wanted it. If not Romneycare we were about to get Universal Health care shoved down our throats via ballot initiative. Private sector driven Romneycare is preferable to government run Universal care.

    What you need to know is he governed exactly as he campaigned, or more conservatively–never more liberally. Has impeccable character. And is a ‘turn around’ guy who can fix most anything broken.

    Final point. Fighting liberalism in a liberal state such as Massachusetts is just as conservative as advancing conservatism in a conservative state……think about it.

    • http://www.baseballcrank.com Dan McLaughlin

      I live in NYC. I also lived in Mass. when I was in school there from 1989-96. I saw what Rudy accomplished in deep blue territory. I’m watching what Chris Christie is accomplishing.

      Romney is neither of those guys.

      • JSobieski

        The very best thing you could say about Romney is that he might a 100% stealth candidate.

        The current governor of Michigan was just such a candidate. When running in the primaries, Gov. Snyder refused to fill out questionnaires regarding his policy positions. He ran on an ultra-bland platform of generic platitudes while relying on a personal resume of business succeess.

        By the time of the primary, I was on the anyone but Snyder bandwagon.

        As it turns out, he has been a strong governor.

        That is the best we can hope from for Romney, although Romney’s time as Mass. governor suggests that we will not be so pleasantly surprised. It is however possible that even his time as governor was just part of this “stealth” resume.

        I have no doubt that Romney ran for governor in the first place merely as a way to try and become president.

  • ombd

    … accentuates Mitt’s negatives and gives short shrift to recent history. The conventional wisdom of today looks very similar to what they were saying about Obama in 2008. You can’t extrapolate what’s happening in the primaries to the general. If 2008 didn’t prove that point, nothing will … http://bit.ly/qVdDUt

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/07/no-clear-path-to-victory-for-romney.html

  • pieter

    Is anybody else feeling trapped in very weird place?

    Many republicans are advocating and about to blithely nominate the godfather of Obamcare.

    The next president will likely appoint two supreme court judges, research who the MA governor appointed.

    Vote your conscience in the coming weeks and months.

  • pieter

    What manner of contract with the devil lends us to believe that Romney represents the interest of conservatives? Rumor has it that the environmental green movement is betting on his flip flop…how does this bode for national energy independence, cheap energy for manufacturing, and family energy expenses?

    Romney is a lie sold to the conservatives that a marginal improvement over the current officeholder is a victory.

  • hermeshelper

    The only polling numbers you should be discussing are the following:

    Through this same time back in 2008, the Dems had “committed” 68% of their total delgates and Obama barely had a 4% lead over Hillary.

    In 2012, to date, we have only “committed” 32% of our total delegates and Romney has a 33% lead over 2nd place. In other words, Romney is out pacing Obama through the same time period (take THAT Axelrod.)

    Please stop whining about not having a more “conservative” candidate in the lead. What the hell were you doing BEFORE the primary. You mean to tell me these are the only “conservative” candidates that the Tea Party could come up with? What a sad commentary.

    Let’s offer to help Mitt – but lets drop him some running mate suggestions in exchange for our support – that will stir up the “conservatives” to want to get out and vote the ticket. Remember, we need Congress too.

    • pieter

      Why not let it go to the convention if he does not enjoy broad base support?

      His integrity, convictions and principles are undeniably questionable.

      The voters are looking for the not-Romney. Undoubtedly there is good reason.

      Cain, Perry, Gingrich. All enjoyed strong favorability. After IA and SC the campaigning by Romney was entirely smear tactics.

      Romney is not the answer. He lacks the intellect or charisma to excite or persuade the general voter.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …let’s find common-ground that yields an action-plan.

    1. The highest priority is to choose the best candidate to unseat BHO; talk of 2016 is off-putting.

    2. Romney-supporters who want the game to be over ASAP are often two-faced [ref: Barbara Bush complaining about the negativity...that her preference has promulgated].

    3. Romney has not attempted to “pitch” the key-triumvirate of Constitutional Conservatives, Evangelicals, and TEA [Taxed Enough Already] Party Activists, yielding a diminished commitment to assist him if/when he is nominated.

    4. Mitt has erred but, unlike The Newt, he hasn’t recanted; this is why a prolonged primary-season is intended to allow for the process to play-out in a “healthy” fashion [as Sarah emphasizes].

    5. Those who lament creation of semi-permanent party-damage are often those who would tend to forget the D’s in ’08.

    6. The electability argument is malleable, for everyone knows the “zits” of each candidate; I feel the three debates may not be as plentiful as the ~20 among the GOP-hopefuls, but they will be as heavily scrutinized/quoted thereafter as they have been in the past…favoring The Newt.

    7. Santorum’s social positions appear unnecessarily harsh, as ML noted earlier; again, presaging Fall, imagine his stuttering @ 6:30 on the FNC Sunday-show [watch tape] when retreating to an absolutist posture defending his faith/church position.

    8. Anything can happen domestically [if the #'s aren't cooked, unemployment figures] and overseas [if Bibi decides to act]; nevertheless, the focus must be trained on the POTUS and NOT diverted to Congress for, if nothing else, the SCOTUS lies in the balance.

    Did I miss anything?

    THEREFORE, let’s see what happens.

    • pieter

      I wholeheartedly support the Speaker of the field of four. I could vote for Santorum if Newt drops out the race. With what I know about Romney, it will require some sacrifice of my own integrity to vote for the man if he becomes the nominee. But I will.

      I feel manipulated that the godfather of obamacare could be our alternative to the president.

      I’m done voting (TN). I hope AL, MS, KS and TX do the right thing rather than settle on a manager of the decline.

      Bring on the convention.

  • texace

    Let’s face it; common-sense, limited government conservatives are in the minority not only in the nation as a whole but within the Republican Party as well. In fact, the philosophy of limited government appears to be a small minority in the Midwest and non-existent in the Northeast and on the West Coast. Cutting down the size and power of the national government apparently only has appeal in the Deep South and maybe Texas. It’s very difficult to buy the proposition that Santorum is a limited government guy and impossible to make the sale that Romney is dedicated to shrinking the size of government.

    • pieter

      I grew up south of Houston…I have faith that Texans will read the tea leaves.

      One hope that I have is that Palin will come out of hiding and stump for the Speaker.

  • ConstitutionMan

    Six brief thoughts:1) I am conservative to a fault (and an evangelical Christian besides), but I want Romney as nominee . Dole and McCain were Senators (gabbers) as is Santorum, Gingrich, and even Paul. Since Ike in 1952, the GOP winners for President were almost w/o exception generals, ex-governors, executive types, or experienced Veeps. Every talker (Goldwater,Ford,Dole, and McCain – God bless them all) failed to win. Check it out before quibbling about Nixon’s stolen loss or McCain’s military duties which are exceptions to the rule. (i.e. Bush 41 ran the CIA, etc.)
    2) Romney is winning in states that rock-ribbed rightwingers like me (not like Gingrich, btw) would be hardpressed to win in November and is NOT carrying our great “conservative” states in the South and elsewhere. But can’t Romney win AGAINST OBAMA in those states?!?!? C’mon.
    3) If conservatives can’t get enthused and motivated about voting AGAINST Obama – they’re “shovel-ready.” I, too, am tired of holding the nose when voting, but I’m also a Cubs fan and can always “wait ’til next year (or next election).”
    4) SURELY Romney is smart enough to ask a good conservative to run as Veep or I’ll be angry with him.
    5) Also, he needs to QUIT talking about working with the other side of the aisle or that Dems are good folks too. WRONG! Dammit, Mitt, we’re at war for survival of America! Forget the Mormon starchiness and get dressed for war already.
    6) Romney as Prez is all the more reason for us to surround him with Tea Party types (I am proudly that, too!) in Congress – that is, BOTH houses to keep him (or push him) to nominate Borks to the Supreme Court, etc., etc. Can you imagine him vetoing good legislation? Or being successful if he did?

    Think about these things, get excited and enthused, and let’s GIT ER DONE this year like we did in 2010!

  • pieter

    The Speaker led in the polls at one time. Why? I think the answer should determine his viability.

    He was not Romney.

    He has a vision that inspires confidence for a real change.

    Am I wrong?

  • pieter

    Romney enjoys the myth of his inevitability. How many of his supporters point to his accomplishments and say “well done”? Over 50% have voted for him, how many did so because they thought he’d win anyway? Not encouraging by any measure.

    His history of business savvy is bunk.

    His success as the manager of the olympics was at the expense of the taxpayer.

    Romney is a liar and smear merchant.

    Yep, great choice for our nominee.

  • redwolf04

    Mitt will get the nomination…..after all the GOP isn’t called the “stupid party” for nothing.

    The American voter will suddenly “learn” all about Mormons from the Obama spin machine via his willing dupes in the MSM.

    Turn out the lights……

    Obama wins.

    • pieter

      If Romney is the nominee, Obama will assuredly win.

      Romney is worse than McCain. The general election will be a disaster for our nation and party.

      Circling the wagons around Romney is an admission of compromised integrity and conservative principle.

      The godfather of obamacare is the answer? Obama wins.

  • satchman3

    That’s a significant margin and may help explain why he’s winning.

    • pieter

      What is the composition of that percentage? How many actually believe he is the right answer to the current office holder and the challenges of this republic?

      What was true before is true today…25% think him the proper candidate. That’s it.

      He and the establishment are perpetuating the lie of his inevitability.

  • mikeymike143

    republicans dont like rascists, anti semites and nujobs and paul is all three.

  • Juggernaut

    to close red states and he’s weak across the country in red states. If Newt drops out later this week then things change and suddenly people have to choose between the abortion candidate and the anti-RomneyCare candidate.

    Good math but to voters Romney is as boring as math. Desperation leads many into fear voting while thinking Romney can beat Obama just because he says so. Has Romney given a better reason for conservatives to vote for him, you like conservative values and clear messaging that doesn’t change.

    Its not over and I welcome this style of proportional states. Micheal Steele earned a lot of respect by ending the backroom dirty deals of the GOP past. Now “we the people” have a far greater say and most states decide instead of early ending campaigns where the moderate always loses. Think Dole,and McCain.

    • pieter

      Romney will lose nearly all of the states he won in the primary and less in the general.

      Obama wins against the godfather of his health care mandate.

  • pieter

    Where are the pundits speaking truth about Romney’s chances to win in the general election?

    Does he have the capacity to articulate why he is preferable to the alternative?

    Money will not be enough. He is obama-lite vs the actual thing as the sitting president.

    We are lost.

  • eldstenorge

    Some of us who are LDS do not support Romney. There is far too many who support him because he is also LDS. That is unfortunate that so many would put aside everything ever said by the LDS Church about the Constitution and support someone who has been so socialistic in the things they do and say. On LDS scripture, from the Doctrine and Covenants, 98:4-10 states: “And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them. And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more of less that this, cometh of evil. I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free. Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn. Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to upholdl that ye shall live by every word which proceedeth forth out of the mouth of God.”

    I do not see how LDS can honestly support Mitt Romney knowing these teachings. In addition to that, an even more poignant scripture is in 134:1 of the Doctrine and Covenants, which LDS call the “Revelation of Governments.” “We believe governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good an safety of society. We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.”

    So, LDS believe they will be held accountable for their actions which are contrary to the Constitution and the Lord. They believe the U.S. Constitution was inspired by God, as does David Barton, a Baptists preacher who started Wallbuilders, a great organization. We should all view his videos, especially “America’s Godly Heritage.” God to wallbuilders.com and see all that he has to offer to help us in this understanding.

  • vandalii

    The problem we currently face is that no one candidate has stood tall enough to take >50% on his/her own. Polling as high as 39%? Seriously? That’s the “winner”? Something is wrong with this picture. This means 61% prefer something else, but that something else has not coalesced into a single person.

    We’re reminiscent of the Democrats’ “Big Tent” where we all have our own little corner of the sandbox that we like to shout from. Previously, the Repubs have been far more monolithic in their overall message. This time we seem to be trying on the “Big Tent” for size. It’s not pretty! Take it off, please!

    Again, if we chose to “bundle” candidates by virtue of their stated political position (note: not past record, so this is a big leap), Mr. Romney is not *THE* winner. However, there would have to be significant ego-lowering for Newt to cash in for Santorum or vice-versa (assuming the delegates could be transferred in that way which they are not). The majority ideology by the poll results presented is one of conservative fiscal and social values. But we split that vote two ways (at this point). The “not-Romney” group is larger, but refuses to put forth a single candidate against Romney, so will end up with a default of Romney. Please note, this is *STILL BETTER THAN OBAMA!”

    With major battles underway within our own party, we send a clear message to the Dems that we’ll end up with whatever we end up with because there really isn’t anyone leading the band. We’ll be so busy licking our wounds after the Nat’l Convention that we won’t be a serious threat to Obama, having handed his henchmen TONS of ammo fired against each other. And that makes Obama a shoe-in come November.

    A house divided against itself cannot stand. We’re divided, gotta fix that or it’ll be FOUR MORE YEARS :-( .