« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Pick One

This is becoming the story of how Mitt Romney fell off the straight trajectory to victory. In Illinois, Romney’s campaign gave Rick Santorum a pass they did not have to. A race Romney would have won outright is now competitive.

The story is a rather interesting one. Romney’s state chairman wants to run for Governor and did not want to make enemies with the Santorum crowd. BuzzFeed explains:

Illinois Treasurer and Romney state chairman Dan Rutherford withdrew challenges in those districts, allowing Santorum the opportunity to win 30 delegates he would have missed out on. . . .

Rutherford is thought to be planning to seek his party’s nomination for governor in 2014, and Romney’s other local allies accuse him of putting his interests above the candidate’s, and ingratiating himself to Santorum-supporting conservative activists.

it is not just Rutherford.

Romney’s Boston team is also fixated on getting Scott Brown (R-MA) re-elected in Massachusetts. Their loyalties and focus are divided. What may be good for Romney with conservatives and base consolidation, may be bad for Scott Brown.

In trying not to rock the boat, they are playing Romney a bit too safe. The campaign has divided loyalties. It needs to recognize that Romney will, in fact, need conservatives in the general election. The campaign will need the South. They may be banking on the fact that conservatives will turn out to beat Obama, but there is a sizable minority who view Romney as not really an improvement. In a tight election, Romney will need even those people.

Throughout the states, Romney has done a formidable and good job building up staff and political allies to help him. But in places like Illinois, those people sometimes put their own political ambitions ahead of Romney. They’re just following his campaign’s example.

The Romney team needs to pick — are they in this for Romney or are they in it for more than Romney? If they are in it for more than Romney, they just might lose both Romney and the other.

COMMENTS

  • Ausonius

    I wrote this morning that the Romney campaign thinks Illinois is easy and a “given” along with California, and therefore the nomination is in the bag.

    What is more unsettling: the psychological traits shown with these attitudes. A candidate can project his attitudes through the people running his campaign, and through the ads he approves, and the results here are not encouraging.

    Arrogance, condescension, phoniness, opportunism, entitlement, etc. “ain’t” pretty!

  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    then the better for everyone else.

  • hls87

    Santorum won’t come close in IL, Romney won’t have any trouble getting to 1.144 and any split focus among Romney staffers will do no damage at all. EE is deep in the weeds here.

    Romney will have a very hard time defeating Obama because he’s a lousy politician with no aptitude whatsoever for the job that will face the next POTUS. His loss won’t have anything to do with micro tactics or intra-party maneuvering. Nor will it have much to do with the disaffection of conservatives. Romney will probably lose because he’s a political loser and losing is what losers do.

  • http://www.political-woman.com politicalwoman

    The last time we had a decent governor was Jim Edgar, who left office by his own volition, and left us with a surplus. Since then, we have perennial runners like Jim Oberweis, the Harold Stassen (remember him) of IL politics, and every other fix-it businessman and politician. So Dan Rutherford is nothing more in a long line of hopefuls trying to overturn the Chgo machine’s influence, and by osmosis, Mike Madigan, who made his daughter IL Atty General.

    I was surprised just yesterday with a robocall from Romney, and two days ago a poll by the Santorum people. So that’s how I know both sides are taking IL seriously. IL, IMHO, is not as conservative as other states, so how Romney plays here and Wisconsin will be quite telling for the rest of his chances.

    But Mitt’s problem is Mitt. For me, it’s not the “he doesn’t connect with….”. I’m so over that. He is who he is. And if he’s rich, then he’s rich. Stash the roboRom, Mitt, and talk to me from your heart and head. Give people a solid message and keep on message. And btw, you need a staff overhaul.

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

    I think it’s also in Romney’s interests – after the Virginia fiasco that was outside his control – to play nice about ballot access and try to win this thing by a more open voting process, if he intends to mend fences with conservatives after the primary.

  • acat

    We seem a little under-represented some days…

    Interestingly, I think Edgar and Romney are similar .. they’re both fine with government being big, as long as it’s relatively efficient… but Edgar could sell it. Romney can’t.

    Mew

  • acat

    was for Santorum.

    No signs for Romney, nor Gingrich, nor Ron Paul. (and the revolution signs sprouted like dandelions around here a couple years ago…)

    I don’t see anyone beating Romney in Illinois – the Chicago media buys are too darn expensive for anyone to really challenge him.

    What’s interesting is .. they don’t seem to be making a serious effort to try for Illinois delegates. Could be because they don’t see the State as in-play in November….

    Mew

  • libertus

    It’s been decades since Illinois mattered. It’s amazing that it now does!

    Santorum is not my first pick, Ron Paul is. And until just a few days ago, I was still going to vote for Paul. And I vastly prefer Newt over Santorum. But I am voting for Santorum so we have a chance of having a conservative nominee, whether that’s Santorum or someone from an open convention. And laying all my cards on the table, I am hoping for an open convention.

    As far as I can tell, everyone in my family is voting for Santorum. No one started there except one uncle. My family has been mostly divided between Newt and Paul. But the idea of “strategy” has sunk into everyone.

    Interestingly, I have seen zero signs anywhere.

  • Scope

    you will very shortly have responses telling you what a fool you are for voting for Santorum, and that you should be voting for that stalwart dependable conservative Gingrich. Be prepared for incoming.

  • libertus

    Illinois over here as well! I agree with the comparison to Edgar. He was not a bad a governor and brought a moderate amount of efficiency to the office. Being a downstater probably helped with that. But Edgar was not a conservative and it’s painfully clear Romney is not one either, no matter how much he tries. In the end, like Edgar, Romney is for efficient government, not necessarily less government.

    I’m in for Santorum — he’s not my first choice, but I want to take delegates away from Mitt and try to get a conservative as the nominee or at least put pressure on Mitt to choose a tea party VP.

  • garfieldjl

    Gingrich people should vote for Santorum but make it clear it’s cause they want Romney out of the race.

    Then I think Santorum people in Louisanna should vote for Gingrich but make it clear it’s cause they want to hear more from Santorum and Gingrich without Obama-lite being in.

  • Mensch

    You make a great point, Dan. In the grand scheme of things, those delegates will likely not matter anyway, and better for Romney to take an approach that sees the forest for the trees.

  • libertus

    If Newt can’t get 15% in Illinois, then he can’t get delegates (or so I understand). I would rather take delegates away from Romney than vote for my first (or second) choice and end up giving more delegates to Mitt. If I lived in AL or MS this week, there’s no question I’d have voted for Newt.

  • libertus

    I will short-circuit any attack of the Newt brigade by stating that I believe a vote for Santorum in Illinois is a vote for the non-Romney. The best thing a person can do in Illinois who supports Newt or Paul is to vote Santorum. A Santorum vote is a vote for an open convention and even Newt himself acknowledges that his best chance is to get this to an open convention. And on a related matter, that is why I don’t see any reason for any of the 4 to drop out now. They should also stay in until Tampa because even a small number of delegates will matter in extracting conservative concessions from the nominee.

  • rednation

    Since Newt has no shot there, and it’s key to keeping the race going.

    It’s not rocket science, even if Newt fans are holding out hope and he stays in, you still vote Rick in IL

  • mrrightwing

    The Brown campaign really should be highlighting Warren’s statist impulses and full-throated support of Obamacare. But Brown has muted his criticism of health care in Massachusetts, literally THE case study for liberal health reform in action. What do we have here?

    Insurance companies are happy; they get the mandate. Politically connected groups are happy; more people will go to physical therapy, or seek counseling, if it’s “free,” and in Massachusetts, every medical service short of a happy-ending massage that has a lobbying group is free. Mitt got to share the glory (at the time) with the first ‘universal’ health care package in the nation. Something for every power broker at the table.

    But consumers, mostly employers, have endured premiums rate increases of 15%+ annually. That comes out of growth, and downstream from that, it comes out of wages, and hiring.

    Has Brown been as vocal as he could be on the one conservative position he’s really ever embraced, the one that got him elected: his promise to be the 41st vote against Obamacare? Not this time around. And even last time around, he failed to throw Mitt under the bus.

    Take it further. Charlie Baker ran against Deval Patrick in year so favorable that… well, a Republican won a Senate seat in Massachusetts. Baker’s campaign hammered Patrick on the economy, but was crying out for another issue. How could he not seize on the dominant issue of the time, and campaign against the disaster that liberals, endorsed by Romney, had wrought on Massachusetts? Why not say, ‘this law is bad, here is what we need to do to fix it (interstate, tax issue, etc)’?

    Why not, except that the state party is either stupid, or controlled by Romney flacks?

  • jamesm

    I wonder how the state will vote. My guess and the polls show it may be close. Romney should take the Chicago but I think large areas of the state goes to Santorum.

  • hisgirlfriday

    Mark Kirk as a Senate primary winner was very much in the Romney mold while Bill Brady as gubernatorial primary winner was very much in the Santorum mold

    Because of the remap there are lots of hotly contested primaries for Congressional/state legislative seats so I would think turnout should be big

  • jamesm

    Could be exciting

  • Filibuster Keaton

    Another Illinoisan for Santorum here.