« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Mitt Romney: Winning, But Not Getting More Popular

Fortunately For Him, The Primary Actually Is Not A Popularity Contest

By: Dan McLaughlin (Diary)  |  March 14th, 2012 at 01:32 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

After last night’s contests, it’s time to update my running tallies of the popular vote in the GOP presidential primary and see what further conclusions can be drawn. I continue to break out the votes in three groups – the five conservative candidates (Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann and Cain), the two moderate candidates (Romney and Hunstman) and the libertarian (Paul) – for reasons explained in my last post. Also, the numbers through Super Tuesday have changed slightly from the last post, as more complete tallies in some states have become available. This time I’m including the Wyoming results in the totals, but not the tiny vote totals from the territories (the Northern Mariana Islands and U.S. Virgin Islands; no popular vote totals are available from Guam or American Samoa).

I. Popular Vote Totals To Date

Let’s look at how the week of contests since Super Tuesday stacks up against the popular vote count up to then:

Candidate Votes Thru 3/6 % Votes 3/10-3/13 % TOTAL %
Romney 3,238,971 39.2% 275,023 29.3% 3,513,994 38.2%
Santorum 2,082,469 25.2% 323,184 34.5% 2,405,653 26.1%
Gingrich 1,820,340 22.0% 273,927 29.2% 2,094,267 22.8%
Paul 926,245 11.2% 48,610 5.2% 974,855 10.6%
Huntsman 66,544 0.8% 1,467 0.2% 68,011 0.7%
Perry 43,834 0.5% 3,171 0.3% 47,005 0.5%
Bachmann 19,786 0.2% 2,616 0.3% 22,402 0.2%
Cain 13,601 0.2% 39 0.0% 13,640 0.1%
Conservatives 3,980,030 48.2% 602,937 64.3% 4,582,967 49.8%
Moderates 3,305,515 40.0% 276,490 29.5% 3,582,005 38.9%
Libertarians 926,245 11.2% 48,610 5.2% 974,855 10.6%
TOTAL 8,263,696 937,477 9,201,173

Let’s take a different angle and break that out by month:

JANUARY % FEBRUARY % MARCH %
Romney 1,071,678 40.5% 741,495 39.8% 1,700,821 36.3%
Santorum 378,995 14.3% 692,296 37.1% 1,334,362 28.4%
Gingrich 817,770 30.9% 160,360 8.6% 1,116,137 23.8%
Paul 278,729 10.5% 215,023 11.5% 481,103 10.3%
Huntsman 50,049 1.9% 2,817 0.2% 15,145 0.3%
Perry 23,592 0.9% 6,293 0.3% 17,120 0.4%
Bachmann 10,856 0.4% 3,480 0.2% 8,066 0.2%
Cain 10,046 0.4% 3,555 0.2% 39 0.0%
Conservatives 1,241,259 47.0% 865,984 47.4% 2,475,724 53.0%
Moderates 1,121,727 42.5% 744,312 40.8% 1,715,966 36.7%
Libertarians 278,729 10.6% 215,023 11.8% 481,103 10.3%
TOTAL 2,641,715 1,825,319 4,672,793

Before opponents of Mitt Romney get too excited here, it’s important to remember that three of the past week’s four contests were on very unfavorable turf for Romney: the Kansas caucus came in a state where the GOP has a very strong pro-life conservative contingent (Sam Brownback is the governor, after all), and the primaries in Deep South states Alabama and Mississippi are tough sells for a Massachusetts moderate (although the Mississippi GOP is very establishment-minded; there are few red states in which the Tea Party has less influence). The next five weeks feature a battery of states, some of them quite rich in delegates and a number of them winner-take-all, where Republicans are more accustomed to nominating guys like Romney – Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Maryland, Connecticut.

That said, especially after Romney’s team made the mistake of talking up his chances in Mississippi (where he finished third), this has been a rough week for him in the popular vote, salvaged only by the continuing division among the conservative bloc. The conservatives drew at least 64% of the vote in all three states to less than 30% for the moderates, and Newt Gingrich alone ran almost even with Romney even when you include Hawaii, which Romney won. Month-to-month, Romney’s share of the vote has been declining even as the field narrows, with the conservatives drawing a clear majority of the votes cast in March (aided as well by poor showings by Ron Paul in the Deep South) despite not even being on the ballot in Virginia. Neil has more.

None of this means that Romney will not be the nominee. Barack Obama lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton after March 1 by 600,000 votes, and still won the most delegates; even if this race finally devolved into a 2-man race and Romney started losing head-to-head battles with Rick Santorum, he’d still probably take the nomination. And as of now, even if Romney can’t win over a majority faction of the party, he has still outpolled any other one candidate.

There are, in my view, three groups of voters to watch to see if the primary breaks out of its current groove:

First, the Newt voters. Newt needed wins last night in Alabama and Mississippi to re-establish himself as at least a regional candidate. He didn’t get them, and it’s hard to see where else he’ll find more favorable conditions. Like Erick, I think it’s time for Newt to exit and let this be a 2-man showdown between Romney and Santorum (Paul doesn’t need to get out, his voters aren’t going anywhere else). Newt has enough delegates already to have a little leverage if there’s a contested convention, but he has no path to the nomination in his own right, there’s no way a deal made with Beltway Republicans is going to end with him in either position on the ticket, and unlike Paul he’s not representing a wholly distinct faction of the party. If Newt leaves, or if his remaining supporters give up on him, I’d assume the majority will go to Santorum – but Romney would at least have the opportunity to convince some who are uncomfortable with Santorum, and that could change the popular vote dynamics.

Second are the Momentum voters, who haven’t really appeared in significant numbers yet (although they do represent some part of why Romney has pushed up to the mid-30s from the 25% position he was stuck at in national polls for all of 2011). Momentum voters may not love or even like Romney, but they’re voters who will get behind the frontrunner and who, in GOP primaries, traditionally step in to end the contest (except in 1976, when if anything they went increasingly to Reagan down the stretch – but then, he was Reagan. Over the 1968, 1976 and 1980 primaries combined, he drew 51.9% of the popular vote). Except so far, they haven’t – I thought we were seeing momentum at last when exit polls suggested a Romney win in Mississippi, but it didn’t happen.

Third are their opposite – the Bitter Enders, which is largely the class I’m in at this point. These are the voters who have come around to the view that Romney will be the nominee, but will nonetheless go to the polls to cast ballots against him to register their protest at having such a candidate head the party. Paradoxically, Romney’s best bet for getting the Bitter Enders to stop voting against him is to play up the possibility that Santorum will win (forcing people to think twice about the consequences of voting for him), or at any rate force a contested convention that could handicap the ticket in the fall. Pretty much everyone who’s still casting votes for Perry, Bachmann and Hunstman is in this category, and I’d wager a fair number of the Newt voters as well (I won’t decide for a while yet who to actually vote for on April 24).

II. State By State

Here, I’ve updated the table of states (also included here are the two territories with popular votes released, the Northern Mariana Islands and U.S. Virgin Islands), ranked by the conservative bloc’s share of the popular vote.

STATE Conserv Mod Libert
GA 3/6 67.1% 26.1% 6.6%
KS 3/10 65.9% 21.1% 12.6%
MS 3/13 65.0% 30.5% 4.4%
AL 3/13 64.4% 29.2% 5.0%
OK 3/6 62.1% 28.3% 9.6%
TN 3/6 61.8% 28.3% 9.0%
SC 1/21 58.9% 28.0% 13.0%
MO 2/7 57.7% 25.8% 12.2%
MN 2/7 55.7% 16.9% 27.2%
IA 1/3 53.2% 25.1% 21.4%
CO 2/7 53.2% 34.9% 11.8%
OH 3/6 52.3% 38.5% 9.2%
ND 3/6 48.2% 23.7% 28.1%
FL 1/31 46.1% 46.8% 7.0%
MI 2/28 44.9% 41.3% 11.6%
AK 3/6 43.4% 32.5% 24.1%
AZ 2/28 43.2% 47.3% 8.4%
WY 2/29 39.9% 39.2% 20.9%
HI 3/13 36.3% 45.4% 18.3%
WA 3/3 34.1% 37.6% 24.8%
VT 3/6 32.8% 41.7% 25.5%
NV 2/4 31.1% 50.1% 18.8%
ME 2/11 24.7% 38.0% 36.1%
ID 3/6 20.3% 61.6% 18.1%
NH 1/10 19.8% 56.1% 22.9%
MA 3/6 17.3% 73.1% 9.6%
USVI 3/10 10.7% 26.3% 29.2%
NMI 3/10 9.6% 87.3% 3.2%
VA 3/6 0.0% 59.5% 40.5%

As you can see, the conservatives have now drawn a majority in 12 states (including cracking 60% of the vote in 6 states in or around the South), and a plurality in 4; the moderates have drawn a majority in 6 (including Virginia), and a plurality in 5 plus the Northern Mariana Islands; the libertarians drew a plurality only in the U.S. Virgin Islands, where the uncommitted vote was more than a third of the vote. The only state primaries where a majority voted for the moderate candidates, given a choice, have been Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

III. Primaries vs Caucuses

STATE Caucuses % Primaries %
Romney 144,017 33.3% 3,102,254 36.8%
Santorum 129,087 29.9% 2,276,566 27.0%
Gingrich 51,552 11.9% 2,042,715 24.2%
Paul 88,030 20.4% 886,825 10.5%
Huntsman 823 0.2% 67,188 0.8%
Perry 12,646 2.9% 34,359 0.4%
Bachmann 6,090 1.4% 16,312 0.2%
Cain 97 0.0% 13,543 0.2%
Conservatives 199,472 46.1% 4,383,495 51.9%
Moderates 144,840 33.5% 3,169,442 37.6%
Libertarians 88,030 20.4% 886,825 10.5%
TOTAL 432,342 8,439,762

The four new contests don’t do a lot to change the overall picture I noted before, in which Ron Paul is much stronger in caucuses, Newt Gingrich in primaries. But note that the conservative bloc has now passed 50% of the vote in primaries.

(I’ll skip the turnout comparisons to 2008, as we’re now far enough into the primary schedule that the comparisons are now truly apples to oranges. But I will note that Ron Paul continues to draw significantly larger numbers of voters than in 2008).

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • rednation

    Fact is, history shows in an election like this, with an incumbent that makes the populace queasy and looking for an excuse to remove him, that choosing a guy based on “electability” by going after moderates FIRST and the base 2nd, is a sure loser.

    It’s a CERTAIN loser with Romney, since if he narrowly wins he is likely to relive our horrors on the Souter nomination on SCOTUS picks given his team of those involved in that being on his payroll, and his liberal failed governance of MA with Romneycare and advocacy of a national mandate (disqualifying him from being our standard bearer outright) on at least 3 occasions since 2007.

    But I digress…

    Romney is wooden, a plastic Ken doll with the personality of John Kerry with an R next to his name. It’s actually painful to watch him over try to make people like him (they do not and know a phony when they see one) where he wears jeans, says he likes cheesy grits, kisses babies and admires their bling bling, etc.

    In such a cycle, with a likable president, a man like this is electoral suicide. Yet the Stupid Party who has Santorum, who connects with voters emotionally and makes people feel like “he understands people like me” receives poll data showing that people are picking based on “electability” and being conservative is less important than beating Obama.

    They tend to swallow, and have for months, Rove’s line that the mythical ability to attract moderates, makes Romney, a person nobody likes, who is insincere and creepy, is somehow more electable than anyone, including Santorum.

    They respond in polls by a 75%-25 clip that Romney, against all real historical logic, is MORE electable than Santorum.

    Which is why Romney is doing as well as he has. If that perception was not so strong, this race would be over by now and Santorum would be the nominee already.

    Fact is, mods, indies, and late deciders are some of the most malleable voters around. They make up their minds based on how comfortable they feel about a candidate, and body cues, and other garbage. Santorum has a lot better chance at this against Obama than any other candidate we have now running.

    A lot better chance.

    Romney is suicidal in this regard.

    Mods and indies do NOT check off a list of issues and look for agreement to vote in one ideological camp vs another. They just don’t.

    They vote with their gut.

    You get your BASE first, THEN you reach out to the mods and indies that decide elections. Since they can and are swayed left or right, trying to actually RUN a moderate is stupid, and self defeating on many levels.

    Additionally, do not think that Rick Santorum loses mods and indies over social issues. While hard left and righties vote on those issues, most of the non-political swing voters do not, they just do not care one way or another. So, they vote for Obama, one of the most socially left candidates who supported the IBAPA affair, and will vote for somebody else who is a polar opposite.

    They key issue of this election is the economy. Voters are not going reject Santorum in a general over his stance on social issues, since the ones who decide elections do not care either way.

    Polls are also now being used to sway public opinion. The press picks up polls showing Romney doing well against Obama and downplays or ignores or repeats less often polls showing Santorum doing well in swing states or being on par with Romney reasonably and not dying against Obama.

    They do so by sample size manipulation and demographic tricks, by sleight of hand. Wake up people…

    • heresjohnny01

      But why don’t the electorate think like YOU?

    • Seedyrom

      and start listening and reading the facts rather than following media sound bytes that pretend Romney is inevitable. He is not worthy of my vote and he lost in 2008 for the same reasons this time and now we know even more about him and he’s less electable than in 2008.

      A good candidate would grow his supporters not lose them in the same states won in 2008. As well independents and minoritues are declining as the election continues. All proof Romney is not worthy of most centrist conservatives nor stern conservatives who vote for the other 3 candidates.

      Karl Rove used his white board on O’Reilly Tuesday night to show that 51.5% of the non-Romney voting states that have not held elections want someone else. Combine Newt and Santorum supporter behind Santorum, over 60% polled said they’d switch from Newt to Santorum. That gives Rick a win and he’ll bleed Romney dry just like McCain did in 2008. Romney put $35 million of his own money in back in 2008. Desperate!!! It will happen again.

      So don’t fear Romney being the salvation of the GOP or conservative movement because he’s not. He’s got more in common with liberals than most care to admit. You can’t fake your beliefs in the public limelight. Maybe before the internet, n longer. Say no to moderates and say no to the media sellouts including FOX news shills for Romney!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Whacker77

    I’m a bitter ender when it comes to Romney in the primary, I just won’t vote for him. The last thing the party needs is to nominate someone either out of touch with or not interested in the conservative base. Romney has shown no inclination to throw conservatives, the base of the party, a bone.

    It speaks volumes about the quality of the field that many Republicans have chosen not to endorse in the race. Jeb Rubio, Daniels, Jindal, and other high profile choices have passed on putting their name and weight behind Romney. They don’t want to be tainted by the uninspiring choices we have.

    I’ll vote for the party in the Fall, but it’s not a good sign we’re going to be asked to vote for someone for whom we’re not exticed. I’m also a bitter ender because I still hold out hope Romney can be denied 1144 delegates and a new candidate can emerge who can excite or, at least, unify the party.

    • garfieldjl

      The two of them would probably have enough delegates put together to get the magic number.

      Now if they can only figure out who should be on top.

      • gracie

        Yes it was on CNN but their coverage has been detailed and heads and shoulders above the rest for election night coverage. Lately.

        The question is was John King’s map accurate??

        He showed scenerios wherein Santorum even took California and he did not over take Romney! What are the chances of that? Of course it was much worse with Newt in, still splitting votes.

        Honestly it did argue for Newt getting out but it may be too late delegate-wise. (And you know I am for Newt now so I don’t say this lightly!)

        Note: John King did allow for the majority of states going forward to be winner take all. So folks! The idea of a brokered convention SOUNDS nice but J King seemed to prove even that is not possible!

        Anybody?

        • garfieldjl

          I think the fight is about which one is best able to take on Obama at the top of the ticket.

          • gracie

            I am just concerned that a station where Erick works seemed to prove Romney would get to 1144 such that there would not be a brokered convention and thus no way for them to join.

          • garfieldjl

            Romney knows Santorum supporters would immediately go to Newt.

            Romney want Gingrich out so he can smear Santorum with impunity and force Santorum out (Romney behaves just like Obama), however Gingrich continually is being a monkey wrench thrown into the gears of Romney’s campaign.

            Gingrich just will not give up, I know Santorum has to be annoyed, but I think the fact Gingrich just will not give up is probably driving Romney up a wall, cause he can’t get Newt to drop out so he can go on and smear Santorum.

          • gracie

            n/t

          • clowngirl

            Newt is keeping Romney in a 2 flank war and I think both candidates are very aware of that.

            Romney reportedly outspent Newt 2 to 1 in Georgia. That doesn’t sound like a guy who is happy Newt is staying in.

            If Romney were so happy about having Newt stay in the race and split the vote — the strategy would’ve been to leave him alone in GA let his poll numbers soar and hope some of it bled over to OK and/or TN.

            The importance of Newt staying in as a restraint on Romney (among other reasons) becomes particularly vivid when you consider the possibility of them having more debates (which AFAIK no candidate has talked about – but it’s always a possibility) Romney and Ron Paul tagged teamed and did reasonable damage to Santorum in the last debate. Why not call one more debate before an important state — maybe Wisconsin – or before voting in a few states -( some situation where winning is likely to put him in such a strong position that Santorum would be unlikely to recover) – and go scorched earth negative, distorting and lying when necessary — with the expectation that friendly media will give him a pass.

            Because successfully tearing down Santorum while sharing the stage with Newt who (quite likely) would be giving a terrific and very positive debate performance — would be just to exchange one lead challenger for another.

            With Newt out – it wouldn’t matter if he brought up his own negatives so long as he hurt Santorum.

            And you can’t go all out negative — with saturation negative ads — with the media treating the opponent as totally horrific — against 2 people at once.

            I also like the idea of Santorum and Gingrich combining delegates — could they do that and then let voters at the convention decide who’s on top?

            The modern Vice Presidency has become much more than a “bucket of warm spit” VPs such as Gore and Cheney have had a lot of responsibility. Putting the remaining conservatives on one ticket is probably the best way to unite and excite the party.

          • http://MichaelHarrington.org Michael Harrington

            And to boot Oregon for the first time is ‘In Play’. A debate in Oregon could help flip Oregon for the next decade.

            Otherwise I like everything you said above.

          • clowngirl

            Glad to hear there’s another debate coming up in Oregon! Hope Newt exceeds expectations.

          • http://MichaelHarrington.org Michael Harrington

            Romney said no and it collapsed.

            Its funny cause our State GOP leader hyped and hyped and it seemed he got it restored only to lose it in the end.

            Funny fact: I have a full access badge to the now nonexistant debate :p

          • clowngirl

            He seems to have gone back to the run-out-the-clock strategy where he doesn’t bother trying to win over those who aren’t sold on his candidacy and instead assumes we can be taken for granted because nobody else will be able to win enough delegates.

            He may very well be in for an unpleasant surprise – or several.

          • cbartlett

            I’m in the “bitter ender” category for Newt. I totally disagree with establishment (Rove, et all) thinking that Romney is the ONLY one that can defeat Obama. He may be the only one that can dump a lot of money in the campaign, but the Dems are rubbing their hands together in anticipation of using all of the ammunition they have against him – they’ve been working on the class-envy issue for years and KNOW that Mitt has the weakest argument against Obamacare. (The fact that the Dems WANT to run against Romney is IMHO a VERY good reason to put someone else up against BHO.)

            A real debate moderated by real conservatives, with real questions about the economy (not birth control mandates!) is what is needed now. It is even more important now for voters to be able to distinguish the professionalism and knowledge of the issues of these three (OK – four, the Paulbots will require him to be there). The format of those first debate “shows” with 6 or 7 candidates did not allow in-depth discussions on important issues. We came away not knowing much about any of them, except the “gotcha” stuff that was so obviously a set-up. Right now there are a lot of people that have to vote “gut” because that is all they have. Some were just not paying attention earlier because (1) their state primary was too far off (2) it’s too confusing with so many candidates in the field – they were waiting for it to narrow down (3) many of the first debates were on-line only and/or on cable-stations not widely available. Now that people really want the information, we decide “no more debates”? Yeah – once again, the stupid party strikes. Wake up. Debate or candidate forum similar to the one Huckabee did – yes.

          • clowngirl

            I don’t think there will be a bitter end. I think Newt staying in the race may result — somehow — in him winning the nomination.

            Or he could be VP.

            Whatever happens the race, IMO, is better with him in it.

            The only truly bitter end I see would be Gingrich and Santorum dropping out and handing the nomination to Romney — then him going on to lose to Obama AFTER effectively giving Republican cover on things like Obamacare and becoming heartily disliked by a majority of the country while representing the GOP as our nominee.

            It;s a painful and bitter thought.

          • http://MichaelHarrington.org Michael Harrington

            Is more of a pukefest for me…. my gut could not take that one.

            I hold out for Gingrich, he is the best to ruin BHO and his socialist ideals.

        • joeydavis

          I tried and tried and reasonably I could not get to John King’s numbers. I could not get Santorum past Romney, but I couldn’t get Romney anywhere near 1144. I can get him as low as 880 and as high as 1025. Granted, I don’t have as much time or information to work with as John King does.

          I could not get Santorum over 800 with or without Gingrich in the race. But I really do think Santorum could win a floor fight against Romney at the convention with Gingrich behind him.

          • hls87

            Sean Trende’s calculator doesn’t take into account the tipping point effect. If Romney can get close and nobody else can, he’ll be the nominee. He doesn’t have to have 1,114 committed delegates. It really is all over but the shouting because Romney clearly will get close and nobody else will.

    • sowa1

      people complaigning that Romney is not a Conservative, they won’t get behind him etc. Do some research or keep quiet. Did you know—- When a child was kidnapped from an employee at one of the Companies Romney was at, Romney called everyone into a room and told them to do everything they could to help find that child, that no work for the Company would be done until that happened? Romney does not brag about himself so there are so many things none of you are aware of. Santorum is a Senator with no job experience, never has had to balance a budget except his own, and has never run a Company or a State. Bad choice for all of us. Would be like voting for Obama again which all of you will by staying home or not getting behind Romney enthusiastically. As far as having a hard time defending himself on Healthcare, it’s simple—–Obama will keep it, Romney will get rid of it.

      • joeydavis

        He’s spent $100 million trying. He’s a miserable failure at it. Face the facts, no matter how great a business man he supposedly is, how great his leadership skills are, he’s a horrible horrible politician. The fact that he’s lost every election he’s been in save one is proof positive.

        Santorum has had less than a year and he’s done an excellent job, despite being outspent 10:1. The guy has an election record exactly opposite Romney’s he’s won all but 1. He’s excellent on the campaign trail and he relates to voters.

        The leadership argument is pure bs. Santorum has led a DA office, a house office and a senate office. He’s worked in private practice as a consultant, which is EXACTLY what Bain Capital does.

        There’s nothing notable or exceptional about Mitt Romney. He got to where he is because his Daddy was governor of Michigan and it opened a lot of doors. Heck Chelsea Clinton walked out of college and into a $200,000 a year job. Is she particularly brilliant or talented? NO, her daddy was the POTUS and her mommy is Sec. of State.

        • acat

          He moved his entire family to Iowa well over a year before the caucuses.

          The late entry to the race is Gingrich.

          These little details matter, and when supporters play fast-and-loose with truth, it reflects poorly on the candidate.

          Mew

      • halle

        I am a fiscal conservative and I am voting for Romney. I do not
        think Romney is any way like Obama.
        This race should not be about social issues. I thought we were
        ABBO. I guess not! I think Mitt will attract more independents then
        Rick. I will never vote for Rick ! I can’t stand him. He is a bore
        and a bigot and a zealot. You guys go ahead and vote for him
        and we will have four more years of Obama.
        I would never vote for a liberal, I will just not vote.
        Do you realize that only 28% of us are Republicans. How are
        we going to win if you want to exclude the moderates and fiscal
        conservatives like my self. Mitt has won one million more
        votes then Rick and Newt. I would say that more people would
        agree with me.

    • shadowmane

      I refuse to vote for Romney. Period. I’m really hoping Newt drops out, so everyone can rally around Santorum. If he starts winning states with 60% majorities, then the “momentum” will go his way, and the momentum voters will get behind him. If Newt drops out now, we’ll have a candidate we can get behind, instead of one that nobody likes, and nobody wants. And a plus for me is, I’ll actually get to vote in the General Election. Romney is a vote suppressor for me. I’ll not vote for him. No how. No way.

      • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

        There is huge difference in being bitter end in the primary and being bitter end in the general. I’ve come to absolutely despise Mitt Romney over the course of the primary, but I’m terrified of another 4 years of Obama who I believe would harm this country to the point that it’s unrecognizable from the one I know and love.

        I voted for Newt.

        • garfieldjl

          Yes we all want to kick Obama out of office.

          However, we can’t just be for kicking Obama out of office simply for the sake of kicking him out of office.

          What our real objective should be is dismantling Obama’s destructive policies. In all honesty I think we could run a Chihuahua against Obama and have a good chance of winning. Newt Gingrich is electable, Rick Santorum is electable, hell even Ron Paul is electable (that’s how bad Obama is).

          However, Romney has given plenty of indications that he intends to continue Obamacare (just tweak it), as well as continue other Obama policies, Romney’s first inclination is to veer left just like Obama.

          Replacing Obama is pointless if we put in someone just like Obama.

          Also for those people that say we can’t win if we have a brokered convention.

          “For everything, there is a first.” — Spock (Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan)

          translation

          There is a first time for everything.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            I loathe the McCain’s, Boehner’s, McConnell’s, Graham’s and Romney’s in the GOP as much or more than anybody, but they are not just like Obama. McCain would have been a far better President than Obama, though not nearly as good as Fred Thompson.

            Until the primary is over, brokered convention or not, I will do what I can to help make sure Romney doesn’t get the nomination. But again, if he does, I’ll focus on helping elect conservatives to the House and Senate, and I’ll vote GOP in the general. And I’ll say it again. Mitt Romney is not just like Obama.

  • http://practicalgopvoter.blogspot.com/ texasproud

    This post made me think of a few political realities we all know but yet we can’t say publicly…

    1. Romneycare would have been much worse if he didn’t compromise. 90% Dem legislature would have overrode his veto.
    2. Pat Toomey was running 4-6% behind Bush in PA, who lost the state by 3%. Pat Toomey wouldn’t have been elected if he was the nominee so people need to get off Santorum’s back.
    3. No GOP candidate could have won four yrs ago. As much as people love to complain about McCain, he still did the best anybody from our side could have done.
    4. Primaries don’t reflect general election attitude. The total number of people who will vote in the GOP primaries will be, at most, a third of the total number of votes our nominee gets in the fall.
    5. All four GOP candidates are vastly different than Obama & no swing voter thinks any of them are ‘too moderate’. General election voters are not driven by ideology the way primary voters are. Most of them are not too concerned about the hot button issues the wat activists in both parties are. People who are politically active tend to be around people who are as well, and that can create a bubble for many people.
    6. Competitive primaries can damage your candidate just as much as it get sharpen them. No one will argue this primary has helped our candidates. I would say the same thing about the TX Governor race two yrs ago too. Perry might have gotten publicity from it, but he still did worse than McCain statewide in a great GOP year
    7. Those manufacturing jobs that both of the parties talk about in the rust belt aren’t coming back. We live in a global economy and unless those states are truly serious about controlling costs-taking on union control of their industry, it won’t happen. Since the Rust Belt decides elections, we must pretend that things will turn around, when that won’t happen.
    8. Blue collar voters aren’t the biggest issue. McCain won them by 18%. We are losing college educated professionals-particularly in non-southern suburbs, though there has been erosion in southern suburbs as well. In areas where the median age is getting younger, our party is doing worse. Just look at Dallas County if you want a TX example

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

      1. Romneycare would have been much worse if he didn?t compromise. 90% Dem legislature would have overrode his veto.

      *-if this be the case, he shouldn’t have touted it as aggressively as he did. Also, when i argued this point with John Gibson over the summer [based on the fact that Romney said this to me during his endorsement press-conference for Toomey], he discounted it…and newspaper accounts contemporaneously corroborate his assertion.

      2. Pat Toomey was running 4-6% behind Bush in PA, who lost the state by 3%. Pat Toomey wouldn?t have been elected if he was the nominee so people need to get off Santorum?s back.

      *-retroactive rationalization doesn’t work scientifically or politically. Santorum sacrificed conservative-cred, again, for “the team.”

      3. No GOP candidate could have won four yrs ago. As much as people love to complain about McCain, he still did the best anybody from our side could have done.

      *-if McCain hadn’t flipped on the $-crisis–and had properly fingered Fannie/Freddie/Frank–many pundits suggest otherwise. Indecisiveness and sacrifice of core-principle are noted by Indies, too.

      4. Primaries don?t reflect general election attitude. The total number of people who will vote in the GOP primaries will be, at most, a third of the total number of votes our nominee gets in the fall.

      *-the enthusiasm gap, however, looms. For example, I’m going to find something else to do next weekend, instead of spending a few hundred $ to hear Santorum @ the PA Leadership Conference in Harrisburg.

      5. All four GOP candidates are vastly different than Obama & no swing voter thinks any of them are ?too moderate?. General election voters are not driven by ideology the way primary voters are. Most of them are not too concerned about the hot button issues the way activists in both parties are. People who are politically active tend to be around people who are as well, and that can create a bubble for many people.

      *-If this argument favors Mitt, then the counter-example for “electability”-related claims is the run-up to 1980.

      6. Competitive primaries can damage your candidate just as much as it get sharpen them. No one will argue this primary has helped our candidates. I would say the same thing about the TX Governor race two yrs ago too. Perry might have gotten publicity from it, but he still did worse than McCain statewide in a great GOP year.

      *-gee, I thought the goal was to pick the candidate that best suits the Buckley Rule, not merely to capitulate to the one who is the frontrunner @ the time the pundits claim [and re-claim] the music has suddenly stopped.

      7. Those manufacturing jobs that both of the parties talk about in the rust belt aren?t coming back. We live in a global economy and unless those states are truly serious about controlling costs-taking on union control of their industry, it won?t happen. Since the Rust Belt decides elections, we must pretend that things will turn around, when that won?t happen.

      *-ah, defeatism [a tool of the D's] is invoked to suggest committed-R’s should capitulate, notwithstanding, again, the RR-experience.

      8. Blue collar voters aren?t the biggest issue. McCain won them by 18%. We are losing college educated professionals-particularly in non-southern suburbs, though there has been erosion in southern suburbs as well. In areas where the median age is getting younger, our party is doing worse. Just look at Dallas County if you want a TX example.

      *-this is all-over-the-place; all demographics are needed. Blue collar ethnics can be drawn, college-educated can be shown how to show they have seen-the-light, and seniors vote more dependably.

      **–nothing in this posting undermines the argument of The Newt to continue to campaign for the ideas in which he believes.

      • cbartlett

        One additional note:
        I have talked with quite a number of those “college educated professionals”, mostly 20 and 30-somethings, living in “southern suburbs” (in this case large Texas cities like Houston, Dallas & San Antonio) and although they would define themselves as conservative, they seem to be very annoyed at the time wasted discussing social issues. That age group is much more tolerant, for lack of a better term, of other people having different views about gay marriage, flag burning and even abortion, in some cases. They have a more libertarian opinion about it – just get the government out of our lives. Tell me what you are doing about taxes and social security and foreign wars and this horrible debt. Many of these kids seem to be very turned off by Santorum constantly wearing his religion on his sleeve. They are worried about trusting Romney on the big economic issues and they are too young to know about Newt’s past history of accomplishments. They are extremely fed up with MSM sound bytes and are tuning it out. There is a huge untapped source of momentum in this group – somebody needs to do some education and harness it or they just might all stay home.

  • http://practicalgopvoter.blogspot.com/ texasproud

    This post made me think of a few political realities we all know but yet we can’t say publicly…

    1. Romneycare would have been much worse if he didn’t compromise. 90% Dem legislature would have overrode his veto.
    2. Pat Toomey was running 4-6% behind Bush in PA, who lost the state by 3%. Pat Toomey wouldn’t have been elected if he was the nominee so people need to get off Santorum’s back.
    3. No GOP candidate could have won four yrs ago. As much as people love to complain about McCain, he still did the best anybody from our side could have done.
    4. Primaries don’t reflect general election attitude. The total number of people who will vote in the GOP primaries will be, at most, a third of the total number of votes our nominee gets in the fall.
    5. All four GOP candidates are vastly different than Obama & no swing voter thinks any of them are ‘too moderate’. General election voters are not driven by ideology the way primary voters are. Most of them are not too concerned about the hot button issues the wat activists in both parties are. People who are politically active tend to be around people who are as well, and that can create a bubble for many people.
    6. Competitive primaries can damage your candidate just as much as it get sharpen them. No one will argue this primary has helped our candidates. I would say the same thing about the TX Governor race two yrs ago too. Perry might have gotten publicity from it, but he still did worse than McCain statewide in a great GOP year
    7. Those manufacturing jobs that both of the parties talk about in the rust belt aren’t coming back. We live in a global economy and unless those states are truly serious about controlling costs-taking on union control of their industry, it won’t happen. Since the Rust Belt decides elections, we must pretend that things will turn around, when that won’t happen.
    8. Blue collar voters aren’t the biggest issue. McCain won them by 18%. We are losing college educated professionals-particularly in non-southern suburbs, though there has been erosion in southern suburbs as well. In areas where the median age is getting younger, our party is doing worse. Just look at Dallas County if you want a TX example

    • texastaxpayer

      Just curious…….

      • cbartlett

        Kind of sounds like it could be a Republican having to live in that liberal bastion of “Keep Austin Weird”. Here in East Texas, we try to send all of the liberals off to Austin. The joke is that we need to keep them all penned up there and leave the rest of the state alone. I just feel sorry for conservatives that must live in that environment. LOL

    • garfieldjl

      It’s that he hasn’t said that it was a mistake, and Obamacare is the prime example as to why Romneycare should also be ditched.

      If Romney does that, he does a lot better against Obama.

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

      …a summary-note is in-order.

      Hey, let’s just capitulate to the GOP-Establishment, shall we?

      Everyone knows The Newt has numerous positions that are both distinct from those of Mitt/Rick AND contrast dramatically with actions of BHO.

      Is there, perhaps, fear that a candidate who undermines the key-problems of these two [TPM-support/Federalism and debate-skills/knowledge, for example, respectively] could become dominant?

  • ken58

    The reason there were no vote totals for American Samoa’s caucus is that there never really are any votes. I lived for 20 years in American Samoa and voted in the GOP caucuses during my that time. There are very few Republicans in American Samoa, and we few would meet at the Rainmaker Hotel. The party leadership would always support the establishment candidate then pick themselves to be the delegates to the national convention. The caucuses would be pretty much a waste of time. Naturally this year Romney as Mr. Establishemt would be their choice, and the large Mromon population in Samoa would merely ice the Romney cake.
    Now I live in Hawaii, and I voted in my local caucus here. Originally I was going to vote for Newt, but earlier in the day I heard the he’d lost the Alabama and Mississippi primaries. Supporting Newt seems now a lost cause. We conservatives must unite to stop the Romney machine, so I voted for Santorum. Though we didn’t stop Romney from winning at least we kept him under 50%. The state party is run by squishy RINOs so a Romney win is not unexpected. Also like in American Samoa there are plenty of Mormons complete with a temple. Romney could murder his mother on national TV and still get their votes.
    If Romney gets the nomination I will be unable to vote for him in November. I simply cannot bring myself to vote for someone with what is frankly a liberal record. What comes from his lips these days are lies. He lies about his opponents and lies about his own liberal record. I don’t see him being an improvment over Obama. He’ll likely not win. How can someone who not only doesn’t excite the base but annoys a good portion of it prevail in an election? So this fall if he is the nominee it will be like those days backin American Samoa where I had no vote (American Samoa has no electoral votes so I could not vote for president in the general election).

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

      First, you violate RS-guidelines if you don’t support the GOP and, second, you violate common-sense if you equate any Republican with BHO.

      • shadowmane

        I will happily violate them. I, too, will not vote for Romney if he’s the nominee. I’m a conservative, not necessarily a Republican. If the Republicans can’t field a real conservative, they cannot count on my vote. I played the “lesser of two evils” last election. I won’t do it twice in a row. The Republicans can either put up or shut up.

        • lineholder

          You have the right to choose whether or not you will vote.

          However, the situation is tense enough as it is without having people who desire to succeed in some sort of power play against “The Establishment” present arguments that (1)violate the rules of this site and (2) add an even greater degree of divisiveness to the situation.

          • garfieldjl

            My honest opinion is Romney = Obama.

            I don’t care how much it ignores the Republican Party Leadership, it’s their own fault for trying to force a left wing progressive down our throats.

            There have been a number of shannigans thus far in this primary season that are downright scary, these scarily remind me of Obama in 2008.

            I would support Ron Paul before I would support Romney, and I think Ron Paul’s foreign policy is insane.

            I would happily vote for Ron Paul over Obama, yeah I find Obama that scary.

            I don’t want the Republicans to nominate someone that I would have to have a coin toss over who to vote for, yeah I find Romney that bad and he has no one to blame but himself for that.

          • lineholder

            There isn’t a Conservative who is worth a grain of salt who isn’t consciously aware of the fact that Romney does have a tendency to lean left in his policy positions. We know that.

            But you’re spouting a piece of dishonest propaganda when you say that Romney is the same as Obama. That isn’t true, with the simple fact being that if Romney were to win the general election, we would not be with someone in the highest position of authority in this nation who very demonstrably approves of far-left socialistic policies and who would have absolutely nothing to lose (and nothing to hinder him either) by throwing this nation’s history of freedom and liberty “under the bus”.

            Can you honestly say that Romney would do the same?

          • garfieldjl

            Starting with Romney pushing for Obama to put an individual mandate in Obamacare.
            http://www.theblaze.com/stories/romney-slammed-by-conservatives-for-pushing-federal-health-mandate-in-2009-op-ed/

            Along with Romney’s record of being anti-gun.
            http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/8239

            Along with a link to a video where Romney tells people that he doesn’t intend to repeal Obamacare.
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI5JjBHq8_0

            Seriously I can post more examples if you like.

          • acat

            requires noting that a big-government soft-socialist republican is different from an incompetent hardcore marxist….

            If nothing else, I will note that Obama has gotten more competent, and if he’s re-elected, he will also be in a position where We The People no longer constrain him with a threat of losing an election…

            You think the overgrowth of the executive now is bad?

            Mew

          • garfieldjl

            Republican GoP in Virginia changed the rules for qualifications to be on the ballot in November 2011. The Judge that ruled on Perry’s lawsuit admitted that part, but he said Perry waited too long to challenge (when you can’t challenge something until you’ve negatively been affected by it).

            There was a whole county in Maine that got denied the right to have their vote counted (the person whom made the decision to postpone it “due to snow”) was a Romney surrogate. Then it was decided that county would not have their vote counted.

            Then there was the smear job Romney pulled in Florida, the worst I’ve ever seen in a Republican Primary.

            Plus Florida decided they didn’t have to follow the rules and would award all their delegates to Romney, when all states that were before April if I remember correctly had to be proportional distribution of delegates.

            Then there was the smear job in Iowa, along with a few other shannigans concerning ballots to make it look like Romney won that state, thankfully the real winner was finally recognized (Sen. Santorum).

            Sorry but that is the kind of shannigans you see in Chicago, Illinois. These are the kind of shannigans you would expect from team Obama.

            We want to defeat Obama and the Democrats in November, we don’t want to become just like them.

          • acat

            and is very familiar with the true nature of Chicago politics. Heh. If you want a fun research project, go look up Romney’s 2008 Illinois campaign chair, Kjellander.

            Thing is .. *if* I were just interested in winning the White House, I could make the argument that we need a dirty tricks campaigner like Romney in order to counter the dirty tricks campaigner Obama….

            Problem with that argument is .. what happens after Romney’s elected?

            I’m pretty convinced many of Romney’s supporters aren’t thinking that far ahead, or particularly deeply… “Oh, I’m sure he’d do okay, after all he turned around companies at Bain and he ran a State” …

            Mew

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

            That’s what happens when opposition fragments and some lose their way and thought that there was no difference between Hugo and his opponents.

            Obama’s read the playbook.

          • garfieldjl

            Unless you are saying that Team Obama is running the GoP in Virginia, Florida, Maine, and Iowa.

          • lineholder

            I may even know more about that particular subject than you do. I do not like Romney’s positions on many things and I wouldn’t choose of my own accord to support those positions.

            You didn’t answer my question. Do you honestly believe that Romney would throw the entire US Constitution and everything this nation has stood for since it was established out the proverbial window?

            Obama could conceivably do so during a second term because there will be little to hinder or stop him.

            On this point, there is a significant difference between the ideology of these two men. And it is dishonest to an extreme to convey and imply that there isn’t.

          • garfieldjl

            Yes. I honestly believe Romney would throw the entire US Constitution and everything this nation stands for out the proverbial window.

            He’s already made a mockery of election process Virginia being a prime example.

          • lineholder

            then I would suggest you take a breather. I’m not a Romney supporter by any stretch of the imagination, but even I am willing to give the man credit for a greater degree of loyalty to this nation than you seem to be.

            As to Virginia….he’s a politician, and a very ambitious one at that who has proven just how ruthless he can be. (I’m not sure whether that is a virtue or a vice at this point.) What were you expecting him to do differently? It is not now nor was it ever Romney’s responsibility to act in the behalf of other candidates who didn’t follow through to the extent that they should have to ensure that they had places on the ballot in VA or any other state. You can lay blame on him for other things that went on behind the scenes if you life, but you can’t put this responsibility on Romney and Romney alone.

          • garfieldjl

            Gingrich and Perry would have qualified to be on the ballot in Virginia before the November 2011 rule change.

            Sorry but the argument that it’s the fault of the Gingrich and Perry, doesn’t fly.

            If it had been Santorum, Bachman, Pawlenty, or Cain whom didn’t even try to get on the Virginia ballot, you would have a point.

            However Gingrich and Perry would have been on the ballot in Virginia if the rules hadn’t been changed at the last minute.

            The Judge that ruled in the lawsuit admitted that part but then used a copout that Perry waited too long to sue (which he couldn’t sue until he could prove he had been negatively affected by the rule change in the first place).

            Oh I forgot to mention that at least one of the people deciding whether or not signatures were valid also worked for the Romney campaign.

            Sorry, but there is just too much there for me not to be worried about Romney shredding the Constitution just like Obama.

          • lineholder

            You may have preferences and strong reasons to vote against Romney, and that is your choice. I have my reasons for preferring that someone other than Romney be elected. And that is my choice.

            But as American citizens, if it comes right down to it, for the sake of our nation’s future, and of keeping enough Conservative actively engaged in this election season to come out to vote, we do need to use at least some discretion in terms of how far we go with comparisons between Obama and Romney.

            You may suspect that Romney MIGHT “shred the Constitution”, but in the context of probabilities, our odds are much higher than Obama WILL, not that he might.

            There’s only so far we can go with the attitude that Romney = Obama before we cut our own throats.

          • garfieldjl

            Romney has already made a mockery of the voting process, see Virginia.

            By pulling that stunt in Virginia along with the other states, he’s proven he’s more than willing to tear up the Constitution.

            So I would say Romney is as equally likely as Obama in that category.

          • lineholder

            There’s a line on this issue that we need to be consciously aware of at all times.

            If Romney wins the nomination, we could see a lag in both confidence and enthusiasm from the Conservative end of the political spectrum. Depending on how deep this lag goes and how much it drags down Conservative participation, we could be looking at suppressed voter turn out, which puts Obama back in for a second term.

            When we get into drawing ideology comparisons that equate Romney with Obama, we’re just feeding into a negative influence that discourages and suppresses Conservative involvement.

            There truly is a line on this that we should NOT cross.

          • lapert

            That is not what the judge ruled at all. Perry didn’t even try to argue against the GOP’s check of their signatures or to claim that it had submitted enough. What the judge said he likely would have ruled unconstitutional was the Virginia requirement that people gathering signatures be state residents – and he is correct that the time to challenge that rule is before the signature gathering period not after.

            It is absolutely on the campaigns for not collecting enough signatures. Maybe the way the GOP went about validating them shouldn’t have been changed but there is no excuse for the campaigns not putting the manpower to get it done.

          • cbartlett

            The Democrats – and actually liberals in general – are not holding Obama accountable for any of his actions. AND they have tremendous support from the MSM. We don’t have any reason to believe that either would change in a second term when it is highly likely he would be far more radical because he would not be worried about his popularity for another election.

            Although Romney has some extremely liberal tendencies, the GOP would not allow the Constitution to be trampled, if for no other reason, they know they’d lose the support of the people. I would like to think that we have enough conservatives in Congress to hold his feet at least sort of close to the fire.

            RS Rule is – vote for the most conservative in the primary and the GOP candidate in the general. Staying home or voting D should not be an option no matter how much you have to hold your nose.

          • garfieldjl

            They would call him the only Republican with some sense, due to his left wing tendencies. Further, Romney will have cost us our credibility and the Establishment would be perfectly happy to go with Romney’s left wing tendencies.

            The discussion is moot because Romney can’t beat Obama in the first place.

            He is the only candidate that can’t beat Obama.

            A Chihuahua has a good chance of beating Obama, that’s how bad of a President Obama has been.

            Newt, Santorum, even Paul would have a field day taking apart Obama.

            Romney is the only candidate that can’t win, because he’s so much like Obama it’s scary.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            but conservatives would keep his feet to the fire. Despite having been told time and again to shut up and get in line, we keep on fighting.

            Look, several of us here are trying our dead level best to keep you in the fold. We get what you’re saying. We don’t like Romney, either. However, if you keep posting that you won’t vote for Romney in the general if he gets the nod, sooner or later, you’re apt to burn your account here. Just don’t say you weren’t forewarned.

          • garfieldjl

            If Romney is the Nominee I would bother post things here slamming Romney, that would be supporting Obama.

            You just won’t see me posting anything supporting Romney either.

            I view the two as equally bad, if Romney can prove he’s better than Obama, then I’m open to having my mind changed, however thus far he’s shown he’s very much like Obama.

            Also if you think I’m saying that I won’t vote, you are also mistaken. I intend to vote GOP for House and Senate, you can count on that.

            I just don’t know who I will vote for in the Presidential slot if Romney is the nominee.

            Until Romney is the nominee, I’m going to be posting to try to prevent that from happening. If he becomes the nominee, I’m pretty much going to be apathetic this entire election process.

            I’m a Newt supporter quite frankly I have no problems getting behind Santorum or Paul if they are the nominee (despite Paul’s foreign Policy insanity). While I don’t think Santorum has the experience necessary, right now I do trust that Santorum is telling me the truth on his positions. If it is a Santorum/Gingrich or Gingrich/Santorum (which is my preference) ticket, I’m going to be trying to man phone banks to help them, I’d go door to door to help their campaign, etc.

            I’m not saying what I’m saying lightly, just what I’ve found concerning Romney is scary. I knew he was sleezy in 2008, and I also had a bad feeling about him in 2008, I was warning people in the 2008 election that Obama was a left wing radical.

            Heck, some people who voted for Obama in 08 have told me that they should have listened to me.

            What I have been saying is that I won’t do anything to support Romney’s campaign, but I won’t do anything to help Obama’s campaign either.

          • garfieldjl

            If Romney is the Nominee I would NOT bother post things here slamming Romney, that would be supporting Obama.

          • acat

            Thus …

            If Romney gets the nomination, I’ll be talking about House and Senate races.

            Mew

          • garfieldjl

            We have to be willing to go after Romney to prevent him from being the nominee.

            Don’t buy the inevitability bull, heck if you really think Obama doesn’t already know all this stuff and doesn’t plan to use this stuff against Romney, you’re seriously underestimating Obama.

            Chicago politicians have the reputation for being the dirtiest politicians for a reason.

            I don’t want Romney to even get the nomination, if Romney isn’t the nominee we derail Obama’s entire class-warfare re-election campaign strategy.

            So I’m trying to prevent us from handing the election to Obama on a silver platter, I think being scared to go after Romney out of fear it will help Obama is actually helping Obama.

          • lineholder

            you’re undermining Conservatism as a whole, both in the Presidential race and quite possibly in down-ticket races.

            I’m a Newt supporter as well, but there’s no way, even now, that I’m willing to go so far as to draw inaccurate or disingenuous correlations between Romney’s positions and Obama’s positions just to try to make Newt look good and to swing voters his way, garfield. I understand too well how it could come back and bite us in the backside in the long run.

          • garfieldjl

            lineholder, as far as I’m concerned the truth is the truth. The facts are the facts.

            Romney has said he doesn’t intend to repeal obamacare. — That is fact, he’s said he wants to tweak it.
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI5JjBHq8_0

            Romney did write an op-ed pushing for Obama to include the individual mandate in Obamacare. That is also fact.
            http://articles.boston.com/2012-03-06/nation/31123276_1_massachusetts-plan-individual-mandate-health-care
            http://www.theblaze.com/stories/romney-slammed-by-conservatives-for-pushing-federal-health-mandate-in-2009-op-ed/

            Virginia GoP changed the rules in November of 2011 which moved the goalpost on number of signitures. — This is a fact, we can argue as to whether or not this was an attempt to hand Virginia to Romney, I imagine a lot of Virginians would support my assertion that it was.

            http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2011/12/26/did-the-va-gop-change-the-rules-on-primary-ballot-access-in-november-2011/

            I think you owe me an apology lineholder

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

            …which is a site rules violation. I advise you let it go – you’re just repeating yourself at this point…

          • lineholder

            You are more than welcome to go back and look at my posting history. What you will find is that I’ve been adamant in my statements about Romney’s support for a socialized health care model in MA, and I’ve stood out in opposition to it every inch of the way.

            If want to make assumptions not based on conclusive facts and evidence about Romney’s involvement in the situation in VA, that is up to you. The decision to change the rules was made by the Republican Party in VA, not Romney himself.

            But I am in the right in pointing out to you that there IS a line that it is not wise for us to cross in the correlations that are drawn between Romney and Obama, and that it can do more harm than good in the long run to focus on it or to emphasize it in such a way that it could become a negative influence in this race.

            What I’ve stated is very much so true, and you’ve basically acknowledged as much above in your own comments.

          • garfieldjl

            I’m not implying you are a Mitt Romney supporter. I’m saying I want it so we have someone other than Romney be the nominee.

            1. I don’t trust Romney
            2. I think Romney is unelectable and that’s why the media is treating him with kid’s gloves.

            I want someone other than Romney to be the nominee so all this talk about whether or not such and such hurts our General election candidate is moot, cause Romney isn’t the nominee Gingrich (whom would mop the floor with Obama in the very first debate), Santorum (while I’m not enthusiastic about, I do trust him), Paul (heaven forbid), or Sarah Palin (assuming we end up in a gridlock, and to be frank I’d love to see Palin pulverize Obama, watching the media have a major meltdown because Palin beats Obama in November would almost be worth the train wreck Obama put us in).

            I want us to have a nominee that I can feel excited about, or at the very least on I can trust to do everything they can to undo Obama’s destructive policies.

            Just so people don’t get the wrong idea, the reason I tend to be overly blunt is because I’m on the Autistic Spectrum. Unlike many people on the spectrum, I’m actually very conservative. One of my areas of interest is politics (though I would never want to be in politics, cause I’m too honest).

            I’m sorry if people think I’m trying to sabotage Romney’s chances if he’s the nominee, what I want is for someone else to be the nominee in order to derail Obama’s re-election campaign strategy, If Romney ends up being the nominee I won’t bash him here or anywhere else because that would be helping Obama. However until Romney is the nominee, I’m going to keep trying to make sure someone else is the nominee.

            You may have a point on Virginia, however there certainly is the appearance of throwing the election to Romney.

            Scope and acat both posted about the Lt. Governor of Virginia’s ties to team Romney. Posts were on December 26th, 2011.
            http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2011/12/26/did-the-va-gop-change-the-rules-on-primary-ballot-access-in-november-2011/

            I reposted the link above so people could find what I’m referring to.

            While I suspect Romney was behind the smear job on Cain, if it turns out that team Obama did the smear job, I will apologize to Romney for suspecting him of that. I don’t care for Romney, but I’m not going to blame him for something he didn’t do.

            As far as what I’m posting hurting our chances, that’s rather doubtful. Obama already knows all this stuff, that’s a given. I live close enough to Chicago that I have a rough idea how they operate. That city was more corrupt than DC until Chicago moved to Washington in 2009. If I remember correctly 3 out of 4 of their previous governors have gone to Prison. Could be 4 out of 5 now cause I don’t know if Blago is included in that number.

            Obama is going to be throwing everything including the kitchen sink at our nominee. I think the reason media is treating Romney with kid gloves is cause they have an October surprise that will make Romney practically unelectable. That is how Obama “won” elections in Chicago, he won by default cause he forced his opponents out of the races.

            When I say Obama could beat Santorum, I am not bashing Santorum, I’m actually insulting Obama. In a straight up situation where it was about the issues Santorum would beat Obama any day of the week even if Santorum were dead drunk and doing a handstand. Obama like most Chicago politicians is going to be pulling a lot of underhanded tricks, he is very good at distracting people from the real issues, etc.

            Never trust a politican from Chicago especially if they are a Democrat.

            Anyways, looks like Indiana is going to count in the primaries, I better see what Gingrich or Santorum has planned for the get out to vote effort in Indiana.

            If Gingrich or Santorum is the nominee I intend to ask if they would like me to find sources to track down all of Obama’s radical ties. Heck I would be happy to volunteer my time doing that.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            lineholder has posted as much or more than anyone else at redstate about Romney, his individual mandate and his refusal to flat out say it was wrong.

            Your statement above, “I just don?t know who I will vote for in the Presidential slot if Romney is the nominee,” seems to be somewhat of a back up from your echoing of shadowmane’s comments.

            violate RS guidelines?
            shadowmane Thursday, March 15th at 11:47AM EDT (link)
            I will happily violate them. I, too, will not vote for Romney if he?s the nominee. I?m a conservative, not necessarily a Republican. If the Republicans can?t field a real conservative, they cannot count on my vote. I played the ?lesser of two evils? last election. I won?t do it twice in a row. The Republicans can either put up or shut up.

            Sorry but I actually agree with shadowmane’s sentiments concerning Romney
            garfieldjl Thursday, March 15th at 12:34PM EDT (link)
            My honest opinion is Romney = Obama.

            I don?t care how much it ignores the Republican Party Leadership, it?s their own fault for trying to force a left wing progressive down our throats. …

            If I drew the wrong conclusion from your statement, I’m sorry. However, as several have pointed out, the rules here are Conservative in the Primary, GOP in the General. However much we may not like it, Romney may very well be the GOP nominee in the general.

          • garfieldjl

            The fact “Mr. Inevitability” can’t seem to make much headway and people aren’t falling in behind him, seems to suggest there is still a very good chance that he won’t even be on the ticket, let alone the nominee.

            To be quite clear I don’t want Obama to win in November, I want him to lose badly.

            I don’t want Romney to win in November either.

            I don’t want to hand the election to Obama by not voting or voting third party.

            Therefore, I want someone else to be the Republican Nominee in November so Obama gets clobbered in November and Romney isn’t the next President.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            We are on the same page.

          • garfieldjl

            Seriously, the one candidate that people are telling to drop out is the only candidate that is taking the fight to Obama and has Obama on the defensive.

            Part of winning in November will be about staying on message and keeping Obama on the defensive reacting you your message.

            Newt already has Obama on the defensive and we’re still in the primary.

            http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2012/03/15/white-house-panicked-over-gas-prices-president-becoming-incoherent

            While the article isn’t mentioning Newt, we all know who has been pounding away on this issue recently.

            Newt took up Perry’s energy policy because it made sense, just like he came to Cain’s defense when people were bashing 999, because he wanted to fix things not play petty political games.

            Gingrich has pointed out the parts of Paul’s posititions that make sense and praised him on it.

            I don’t think Gingrich was originally in this to be President, I think he was originally in this to get people to take up the policy positions that we could trounce Obama with in November 2012.

            After Herman Cain got smeared, Perry showed he wasn’t ready for the big stage (if Perry could have gotten elected President, which I don’t think he can until he conquers his stage fright, he would have been a very good President), Romney’s underhanded behavior, and Santorum’s weakness when it comes to social policy (I’ll explain later in this post), Gingrich probably decided that:
            1. He can’t trust Romney on anything.

            2. Santorum can’t beat Obama because Obama can easily get him off message.

            That’s why Gingrich is staying in this.

            Santorum’s social positions aren’t the problem, if he wants to make that part of his platform, that’s all well and good. However, Santorum tends to obsess over these issues or get drawn into these discussion over and over again. Yes I know the media is partly to blame, but to be frank so is Santorum.

            Remember the last debate where contraception came up, anyone could tell it was an attempt to paint Santorum as a fanatic (everyone here knows that Democrats are really talking about forcing people to pay for abortions). Gingrich jumped in and dismantled the narrative the Obama press corp was trying to paint.

            He showed how they were just being shills for Obama, he pointed out that the real extremist was Obama, etc.

            This is what Santorum folks need to realize, Gingrich could have sat on his hands and let Santorum implode. Instead Newt Gingrich jumped into the fray and pulled Santorum out of the proverbial fire.

            If Gingrich was working for Romney he wouldn’t have done that.

            If anyone needs to be booted out of this race it’s “smear-a-minute, I don’t know what my campaign is doing” Romney, so we can have an actual discussion on issues and whom has the best plan on how to fix things.

            We should be figuring out how to fix this country not nominating the man that throws the most mud around.

          • WillWong

            1. Obama has fumbled in his response to it.
            2. Non-Energy Secretary Chu has backtracked from his European level gasoline
            3. Santorum has started talking about gasoline too
            4. Dick Armey called for the GOP to use high gas prices to win in 2012
            5. Obama’s BS that more drilling will not affect prices when he is thinking of releasing oil from our strategic stockpile to increase supply and hence lower prices.

          • WillWong

  • rednation

    http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-santorum-and-obama-neckandneck-in-pennsylvania-20120314,0,2505996.story

    Behind just 1 on Obama in his home state, which is in play aganst Obama possibly and may make him work there a lot harder than he had to last time, the leadership and Ridge and others are going all out to go against Santorum in the same state in favor of John Kerry part 2.

    They do not call the GOP the Stupid Party for nothing!

  • ihavehadit

    I have not been over on red state for a while and now I remember why. This anti-Romney rhetoric is getting beyond sickening. I was a Perry supporter until he dropped out so I bit the bullet and decided on the next BEST candidate. Romney may not be the u lter conservatiive you want him to be but at least he isn’t a religious fanatic with no exective experience. Santorum is an empty suit that lies daily and he is a known LOSER who supported Spector and had a lot of bad votes but people ignore that because he isn’t Romney. What a reason to vote for someone. Good Grief

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

      …but you should note that ongoing anti-Mitt sentiment is fueled by his negative-ads against his competitors.

      • circlegranch

        and has nothing to do with so-called ‘hate fests’ here or elsewhere. Marc Levin conducted a most interesting and astute ‘class’ on his program yesterday, explaining why true conservatives have yet to be forced to join ranks with conventional thinking that only Romney is electable. If not mistaken, I believe at Levin’s website, you can listen to a podcast of that program and these comments were in the first hour of his show. The ‘money’ take-away line was that conservatives don’t have to check their beliefs at the door in this primary. We’ll support whomever is the nominee, but we’re not there yet, so stop trying to shut down freedom of speech and curtail the election process.

        Mr. Romney has carpet-bombed every single candidate that has dared to challenge him. He has thin skin when he’s criticized or challenged and he focuses far too much on the negatives of others rather than his positives. He needs to talk about something other than the fact that he loves America and he has alot of business experience. We need a well rounded president. We have huge foreign policy matters at hand, too. He needs to be talking about his expertise in that realm and what he plans to do. His supporters talk as if we should be making hotel reservations in DC for his inauguration, yet he continues to lambaste his opposition, which only drives a wedge further between him and all the voters that have supported other candidates along the way. There are still people voting for Perry, Bachmann and Cain. Romney needs to build bridges, not keep blowing them up.

        Having a multitude of family and friends in Illinois, both in the Chicago area and in rural downstate, people are totally turned off to his attacks on Santorum. The TV and radio ads and robo calls are as annoying there as they’ve been in each state. His massive spending dominates and people are not receptive to his dirty campaign tactics. That’s why he doesn’t break above 30%. It isn’t commenters at RS that are influencing voters in Illinois. They would much prefer he run ads blasting Obama. Conservatives and Republicans alike (yes, there is now a stark difference between the two) in Illinois know Obama, perhaps better than the rest of us and they want him out of the WH. They want to know which candidate has the most courage to call Obama out on his failures. Romney continues to try and destroy those around him, meanwhile claiming he’ll never utter a disparaging remark about Obama. The Young Republicans in Chicago have trended toward Ron Paul, as have many disgruntled Democrats attracted to his nutty foreign policy. If the suspicioned alliance between Romney and Paul is factual, perhaps it will bear out in Chicago/suburban voting results, helping Romney, but rural counties will likely not go in his favor.

        The president just signed a law that makes it a felony to protest at any location where Secret Service personnel are present. Sadly, some Republicans signed onto the idea. The anti-free speech, anti-freedom of thought and expression of thought sentiment continues to grow in this country. It should disturb every lover of liberty, including those that are getting angrier and more frustrated by the minute that the entire voting block registered as “Republican” in this country hasn’t lined up in lockstep behind the candidate that the leadership tells us we must support. Whether its Ann Coulter out bashing Sarah Palin for peddling political opinion (yes, ponder that one, shall we?) or comments such as posted here, there is a growing contempt in America, including among those claiming to be conservative, to silence and disparage those that don’t agree.

        There is going to be a ‘coming around’ once Romney gets the nomination, if indeed he does. The sore losers will be so few and far between they will not matter. The more we see news stories such as American flags being mutilated with photos of Obama on them, extravagant WH state dinners while average Americans can’t fill their gas tanks, the United Nations sticking their noses into our state’s rights by considering whether or not photo ID to vote is a violation of ‘human rights’, the more people will have had enough. Whether its Mitt or Rick or Newt on that ticket in November, with the help of God, we will take back America.

        And, to those that are lashing out at anybody that believes they still have a Constitutionally protected right to support candidates other than Romney and can speak in support of those candidates, we pose this question to you. Will you, as a Romney supporter, come around and support Newt or Rick should either be the nominee? We have alot of hand-wringing that these dastardly conservatives may blow the election because not enough of them won’t support Romney. What about your camp? How will you find yourselves if in the end, your guy is not the nominee? Will you engage in a ‘hate fest’ against our candidate, or will you practice what you’ve preached to the rest of us?

        • Common_Cents

          “, “the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011″ makes it illegal to protest in the vicinity of anyone who rates a Secret Service detail (even if you aren’t aware of the person’s presence), thus sparing politicians and VIPs the ugly and unseemly spectacle of having to confront voters who disagree with their policies. Only three Congressmen voted against it. ”

          Zero coverage by any lame stream major media.

          • garfieldjl

            I mean seriously, this is so blatently unconstitutional that it’s laughable.

          • Common_Cents

            and only 3 congressmen voting against it? That’s kinda scary.

        • littlehouse18

          And what does ‘vicinity’ mean? Sounds like blantant tyrrany.

      • krish

        Especially those of us who lived in MA! He is The Biggest Fraud ..that has been imposed on the Republican party…Nobody has Mittens liberal credentials!!

        If he wins the primaries, God forbid, he will really pivot to the left & watch out..all the comparisons to Obama would not look so far fetched.

        If you take issue by issue on a scale of 10, you will see Romney being very close on major issues …..cap & trade, health care, class warfare on tax policy, welfare, abortion, etc………..

    • joeydavis

      5 years $100 million, all the kings horses and all the king’s men behind him and he can’t finish in the top 2 in any Republican state.

      If Santorum is a known loser what the heck is Romney? Santorum’s record is A LOT of wins 1 loss. Romney’s record is ALOT of losses 1 win. Not only that Santorum has a record of winning in a Democratic state running as a solid right conservative.

      We ignore a lot of Santorum’s votes because we understand how politics works. We also know that Santorum was for decades known as one of the most conservative officials in Washington. Further we know that if LOSER Mitt Romney had been actually elected, his record would be LEFT of Santorum’s. The perfect example would be Sen. Brown from Massachusetts, he’s RIGHT of Mitt Romney but left of almost every other R in the US Senate. Santorum was RIGHT of 95% of Republicans.

      Specter was going to win, Toomey was going to lose. Specter gave Republicans a majority. No further discussion needs to take place. Again we accept the actions of Scott Brown because that’s the best we’re going to get from MA. He would be patently unacceptable as a Democrat in the south or in flyover country. Santorum clearly understands what’s at stake in every election.

    • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

      .
      .

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

      Your comment history indicates that you don’t like the way that RedState diarists have treated your candidate choice, Mitt Romney, but instead of making an affirmative case for him, you just complain about everyone on down from Erick, as to how everyone hates Romney.

      I suggest you look at yourself as well, and decide if your wish to make a positive contribution to RedState or just kvetch. Please note that the latter doesn’t add value to the conversations here.

      • acat

        Instead, they try to bring others down…. because Romney’s record is clearly that of a moderate, not a conservative.

        It gets old.

        Mew

    • halle

      I have been reading comments after comments all over the
      net and I agree. The social conservatives are the most hateful
      people that I have ever seen (except for liberals)

      What a bunch of hypocrites ! Kind, loving, family values.
      Yea Right !!!
      Newt… A wife cheater
      Rick…. No religious tolerance, hates gays,
      Mitt… married 43 years to same women, does not wear
      his religion on his sleeve

      • acat

        to make yours appear larger.

        The “Mormon card” …

        …has been getting quite a workout, if not by Willard himself, then certainly by other Romney-branded Candi-bots.

        Please understand that, if you continue to prattle on like this, nobody’s going to take you seriously.

        Mew

      • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

        halle – a glass house dwelling stone thrower
        and
        halle – can’t see the difference between conviction in faith, and ‘intolerance’…

        • halle

          I am pleased to announce that I will be leaving red state.

          I have nothing in common with your ideologies and for that
          matter, the majority on here.

          • garfieldjl

            His supporters play the Mormon card as often as Obama spams the race card.

            It gets very old very quickly.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            No… you made up your mind

      • garfieldjl

        The worst I’ve seen from Conservatives as far as intolerance is concerned pales in comparison the hate filled vitriol (sp?) that comes from the left on a daily basis.

        Furthermore, I don’t like Romney due to his behavior and his past record. If he convinces me that he’s serious on changing his ways and actually changes his behavior (instead of smearing all his primary opponents), I’ll revise my opinion of him.

        Sure the campaign field isn’t the greatest but we have work with the ones that decided to get in this race.

        Newt’s personal issues aren’t a big deal when you look at the mess we’re in.

        Rick has stated that just because he thinks something is immoral doesn’t mean he’s going to behave like a liberal and try to use government to force his views on people.

        So the attacks on Newt and Santorum are just silly.

  • countryroad2012

    He is big government all the way and conservative only on Social issues. He is typical Irish…Full of Blarney! He has no real world experience and you people want to put him in the White House! How about we pick someone with experience, a history of performing, and a discreet leader! This is a hatefest on this site. Ridiculous and not worth reading most of it.

    • brojohn2

      I come from a long line of Irish in this country since the 1600′s, and there is no reason to use us as an epithet. I actually support Newt and will continue to do so unless he decides to leave the race.

      Yet when it comes time to vote in November, I will stand with the truth which is I am for NO Obama. I will hold my nose to vote for Romney, or Rick Santorum if either of them is the nominee. I will try not to use racial epithets to cut down those I disagree with.

  • bennybeaver

    I am not all that familar with the Republican stance, you see I have always voted third party. Do not believe that I am politicaly uninformed, that is why I decided to look in to the Republican stance because I will cast my fist ever Republican vote.

    After reading these reponces I can only say WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE??????

    Indepenants, who you desperatly need will go no were near Newt or Ricky.
    So I say to you, as one who has studied politics for more than 30 years, keep it up with your silly “TRUE CONSERVATIVE” crap and we will get 4 more of Obama.

    • joeydavis

      Clearly you need a better teacher.

      John Kasich has been elected multiple times in Ohio. Rick Santorum has been elected multiple times in Pennsylvania. Marco Rubio won in Florida despite a 3rd party moderate Republican challenge.

      These are all hard right Republicans winning in swing states. History shows us that conservatives consistenly win for Republicans and moderates consistently lose for Republicans.

      Independent voters are worthless. Those of us in competitive/lean Democratic districts know this and have known it for all the decades you’ve been “studying” politics.

      Quite simply, you are wrong!!!

      • cbartlett

        Hard to get respect when you write like that….

    • halle

      I have also heard some moderate Dems. call into talk radio who said
      they will vote for Romney. We need all of the votes we can this
      election. We also need money! Unions have already donated
      400 million to pac ads.

  • fishgod3

    Sandra is an obama Fluke-up

  • mikeymike143

    its no coincidence that this loon has never won so much as a single state even though this is his third time running for president.

  • blark

    Eric, I applaud your creative talent for taking the availble colors (the statistics) and painting with them the picture you want. You would be more valued, however, as a relevant pundit if you had the ability to take the available colors (the statistics) and with some personal integrity, paint the picture of how things really are (even when that is different than from how you want them to be). A big part of the problem is the way you, and many like you define conservatives, and how those who feel they are conservative define themselves. The exit polls that you use here clearly depend upon how people describe themselves, and then you use those numbers as if to suggest that what people say about themselves fits closely with what you define as conservative. For example, you, of course, describe yourself as conservative, and would define yourself that way in an exit poll question. But, Romney also describe’s himself as a conservative, and would (along with many like him, including myself) use that word in an exit poll question. But, clearly you would not place you and Romney in the same conservative category in these numbers. So, you can see how your groupings are flawed and that you have to admit that many self-described conservatives would not meet your more extreme definition of conservative, and would be, as you describe Romney, more moderates –meaning that a significant portion of these conservatives would have to move over into the moderate category (if you applied your more extreme standard of conservative), and that presents a very different picture that you do not like, but is, moreover, and accurate picture of “how things really are”.

  • macduff

    As usual, your posts provide unique clarification and insight. Thanks for going to the trouble.

  • Pingback: Thursday Cup O' Coffee - DC