« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Where is the Race?

By: Leon H. Wolf (Diary)  |  February 14th, 2012 at 11:11 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The recent polling on the state of the GOP Primary is either bad news or catastrophic news for Mitt Romney. According to PPP, this thing is already almost over for Romney, as PPP shows Santorum up by 15 nationally and 15 in Michigan. The latter is probably equally bad for Romney; if he loses by 15 points in what is essentially a second home state for him, he might not recover.

There are signs, however, that the race is considerably more complicated. Four other polls have been conducted since last Tuesday’s hat trick for Santorum. CNN/Opinion Research shows Santorum up 2, Gallup shows Romney up 2, CBS News/NY Times has Santorum up 3, and Pew has Santorum up 2. In other words, PPP is outside the margin of error for BOTH Santorum’s level of support and Romney’s level of support. Likewise in Michigan, Rasmussen shows Santorum up by 3 – reflecting that PPP  is within the margin of error (barely) for Santorum’s support but drastically undersampling Romney’s support.

In a normal set of circumstances this evidence would lead inexorably to the conclusion that PPP had a bad set of polling, and their results should be discarded. However, not so fast. In last week’s contests in Colorado and Minnesota, PPP was the only polling company to sample either state and drastically undersampled Santorum in both. It is at least possible that PPP is on to something here that the rest of the pollsters are missing, and things could be much worse for Romney right now than they would otherwise appear.

Is there another twist left in this race? The nearly interminable series of debates is almost over and there are few obvious opportunities in the next couple weeks for Santorum to self-destruct. The chorus of well-respected Romney supporters may have already burned up their chance to influence the race by engaging in scorched earth against Gingrich and arguing that he represented certain doom for the GOP; it will be hard to make the same pitch twice. Romney may have just two weeks to turn this thing around before the race is cast in stone against him.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • texastaxpayer

    ready and a good stone picked out. I can’t imagine anything I will enjoy more than Romney giving his concession speech save maybe watching Obama exit the whitehouse for the final time. Romney’s departure will be a great day for the GOP. We can finally put the scorched earth smear campaigns behind us and have a real debate about the state of our nation and conservative solutions to our many problems.

    • usedtobelib

      there’s no way America chooses Santorum.. It will be an electoral landslide for Barry.

      • hobiecat

        is that America has sunk so low that socialism will win over traditional values? I Agree. We have been wussified.

        • redcal

          …simply people who dislike Obama (personally) but secretly love his policies.

          It’s not that they think Obama is politically weak — if so, ‘electability’ wouldn’t be an issue, and no one would ever bring it up. In fact, they think Obama is politically strong, and know that Romney is the most like him, and thus would siphon off more of his support than a clear contrast.

          This explains why bringing up Romneycare only inflames their passions further, deep into the throes of cognitive dissonance (viz. Ann Coulter in “Three Cheers for RomneyCare).

          • Adjoran

            and a nasty one, at that. Gingrich supporter, I presume?

          • redcal

            nt

          • papabear

            when thou hast a beam in thine own?

            In your case, I suggest that thou hast a giant redwood timber in thine own eye.

          • papabear

            I know that some liberals have difficulty understanding biblical references.

            You show yourself to be a nasty piece of work and a hypocrite of the first degree!

          • radicalrighty

            Newt’s bunch are nastier than Paul’s – by a lot.

          • texasref

            We just don’t want Mittens! We’ll settle for Santorum, not to worry!

        • renl57

          …has PERMANENTLY severed the link between contraception and procreation. It was that link on which what you call “traditional values” was based.

          First, the contraceptive Pill made it possible for a woman to have sex without procreation. Next, in-vitro fertilization (IVF) made it possible for a woman to have procreation without sex.

          This has even led to some new bizarre arrangements, like a wife who cannot conceive hiring a “surrogate mother” to be impregnated with a fertilized egg from the wife and carry the baby to term, after which she hands it off to the wife to be raised.

          Those arrangements are not going to go away. And Santorum’s denunciation of birth control as harming society–meaning that he regards pregnancy as a deterrent to extramarital and premarital sex–is going to doom him at the polls.

          Today’s women are career women. They plan their pregnancies–or decide not to have them. That’s the reality, and all those who prefer “traditional values” are going to be disappointed.

      • trickamsterdam

        Wrong. Santorum has a better (maybe significantly better) chance in PA and OH than Romney. That alone makes him more electable.

        It shows how out of touch many in the GOP are w/ their own base that they could think that Santorum’s opinion on gay marriage could be more damaging than the fact that Romney is a stuffed shirt corporate raiding born w/ a silver spoon in his mouth and a stick up his ——– detached doofus, in this economic environment.

        That being said, Santorum will be an underdog too. Actually, w/ a possibly resurgent Obama even a super ticket from a brokered convention (e.g., Ryan/Rubio) might be an underdog. But I’d put Santorum’s chances of beating Obama at about 45%, Romney’s 40% or less.

        Santorum’s approval/dispproval rating w/ Rs is more than 40 points higher than MItt’s, btw. He crashed over 30 points when he went negative on Newt (although he took Newt down w/ him). So he’ll struggle to motivate Rs and when he’s cut to pieces w/ attack ads on Bain, he’ll lose independents too.

        ***

        “I can?t imagine anything I will enjoy more than Romney giving his concession speech” – texastaxpayer

        @ texastaxpayer: I’m looking forward to it too. I hope the mask finally drops and we get some water works like when Nixon had to resign and just broke down. The only emotions I’ve seen from him so far are contempt and empty rage, so maybe we’ll see “the real Mitt Romney” (if there even is such a thing) at the going away party.

        I’m interested in seeing what happens in Arizona. Santorum can survive losing both and Mitt can survive losing MI, but if he has a colorado-type surprise in AZ…it’ll be time for Mitt’s campaign to do a far, far better thing than it’s ever done before, and go to a far, far better place than it’s ever been…

        • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

          I mean the swiss bank account was and is an innocent thing, but …

          which is more extreme:
          - has a swiss bank account
          - is pro-life, pro-traditional marriage and goes to church

          To the east-cost/west-coast elites, they think #2 is more ‘extreme’.

          out of touch indeed.

          • trickamsterdam

            From the same people who brought you Perry and the racist rock:

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/elie-wiesel-calls-on-mitt-romney-to-make-mormon-church-stop-proxy-baptisms-of-jews/2012/02/14/gIQAZK6bER_story.html

            If people read the posts and remember, I predicted they’d use MSM surrogates to attack Mormonism, not paid ads or elected Dems.

            Also, that the MSM would be able to have its cake and eat it too, by blaming conservative Christians, saying “we have to investigate this because conservative Christians have questions about Mormonism”.

            Here they’re using Jewish Holocaust victims and their families, so it’s basically the same thing. The question you have to ask yourself is if a Muslim were running for President, would the MSM feel comfortable asking him to call out other members of his Faith?

            Look, as much as I despise Romney, there are two things that aren’t his fault:

            1. He was born rich

            2. He’s a Mormon

            However, if we’re going to talk about how it’s a potential negative that Perry sounded like Bush 43 or Santorum may turn off women w/ his religious stands, we have to acknowledge Romney is going to be pounded on these two.

            It goes to his electability which is central to his campaign.

            And if you think they have any shame, remember the feeding frenzies over Perry and the rock and Cain and sex (even if Cain probably was guilty, there’s no way I believe they would have been that aggressive if Cain had been a black Dem leading in the polls for POTUS…if only in the sense that they’d be scared that Sharpton etc would come after them).

        • sulmak

          people seem to think that Romney is more electable because he is more palatable to blue states, but blues stats will go to Obama.

          It is the left leaning swing states that matter most to electability, and most of those are in the rustbelt.

          • Flagstaff

            Every sane person who considers the electability question is thinking about the swing states that we need to win. Nobody expects to win California or New York or other solid blue states. Yet.

            MO and CO are two of those states, which is a positive sign for Santorum.

        • hls87

          This discussion is moot. It is barely possible (although highly improbable) that Romney might lose both Michigan and the nomination. It is flatly impossible for Santorum to win the nomination. If Santorum knocks Romney off, the Party will find a genuine replacement and I wouldn’t bet big on the pinch-hitter being a major improvement. One way or another Santourm will be neutralized.

          We aren’t going to recycle a key figure from the catastrophic Republican congressional leadership that squandered their majorities as they prepared the ground for Obama’s lurch to the left. I is difficult to imagine a worse candidate than Romney, but we don’t have to imagine such a candidate because both Santorum and Gingrich provide us with real life examples.

          Romney won’t attack Santorum from the left. (except possibly over the role of women in society, being careful to avoid the topic of abortion). He’ll point out (ad nauseum) Santorum’s long history as an earmarxist. He’ll remind everyone of just how destructive Congress was when Santorum was part of the Senate leadership. He will link Santorum closely with the status quo in DC. All of this will be both fair and lethal.

          Santorum’s candidacy is a joke. We aren’t going to recycle a Senator who flamed out in 2006, and even if we were we wouldn’t pick Santorum. George Allen would be a much better choice, for any number of reasons. Many people have made the mistake of taking Santorum seriously in the aftermath of his low-turnout trifecta. Romney will remind them why they never took Santorum seriously before. When he does, the last obstacle to his nomination will be gone.

          I don’t say this wih any pleasure. I take a back seat to nobody when it comes to loathing Mitt., but you can’t beat somebody with nobody. Unfortunately, Mitt is somebody and Rick isn’t.

          This week’s polling data is just noise. By late next week everyone will be wondering what happened to the Santorum surge.

          • trickamsterdam

            Oh, I don’t know. I’d say you clearly take a back seat to me and several other people on the thread.

            The most pathetic thing about you Romney people is that you don’t realize it’s over and irreparable. People don’t care what Romney talks about “ad nauseum” because people have already tuned him out.

            It’s very much like McCain after Wall St crashed. People didn’t care about Bill Ayres because people had already pinned the blame entirely on the GOP (unfairly) and tuned him out.

            MItt Romney is a rank amateur politician who spent 15-20 million dollars on (literally) 99.99% negative ads on Newt in FL and blew himself up w/ his target as sure as any terrorist. The only difference is the suicide bombers actually know they’re commiting suicide: Mitt actually thought he was “winning”.

            PS – After Romney is knocked out, it’s possible that someone else gets in. But I’m not sure the voters will accept the person, especially if you’re right (although you haven’t been right about anything else) and the “pinch hitter” isn’t much better.

            In any case, Romney has as good a chance of being the next President of the US, as Newt does of being president of the Moon: That is to say, virtually none. I doubt Romney could even sweep the South, and w/ a good VP that’s automatic for Santorum..

            PPS – Ask yourself this…what states can Romney take that Santorum can’t? What states can Santorum take that Romney can’t? When you answer honestly you’ll realize Romney can potentially take New Hampshire, and Santorum can potenially take the whole Rust Belt.

            That is all, Romney defender.

          • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

            I’ve been defending Santorum, and frankly this is all ab out relative merits…

            Santorum IS more electable than the semi-billionaire who is 1 for 3 in prior races and has had issues connecting with voters, etc.
            He is also more electable than volatile Newt who in the last poll vs Obama was down 18 points.

            If your claim is that santorum cant win the nom and ergo … what? Romney wins? How does Romney win when he keeps polling worse than Santorum or Newt?

            So are we screwwwwwed???

            I had thought that if Romney lost in Florida, we might manage to have Romney see the writing on the wall, jump ship and the establishment lines up Mitch Daniels to stand in.

            Bottom line: I – and I suspect MILLIONS OF VOTERS – might breathe a sigh of relief if a good solid stand-in can be found.

            But if that day doesnt happen, our best candidate, warts and all, will be Santorum, not Romney.

      • jgelling

        If Romney’s the nominee, we know Obama’s going to paint him as a rich, out of touch Wall Street guy with no moral convictions. You can tell, because the DNC begins and ends every day with those attacks on Mitt and sends flaks wherever he goes to make those points. Obama is absolutely 100% ready for Mitt and has been for 2 years.

        If Gingrich is the nominee, Obama would have to kill a baby on live television to lose. I think that probably won’t happen…. I think.

        If Santorum is the nominee, what’s the playbook? He’s too religious? That’s not a bad thing for most of the electorate. He’s anti-women? I don’t know if they can go there – the guy has an admirable family life, and he can dodge the birth control issue by pointing to his strong Catholic values.

        Even better, Santorum has a blue collar jobs plan, while Mitt has 7845 point plan to keep his taxes next to nothing, and Obama has a plan to raise taxes.

        I think Santorum is harder to run against, all things considered. He’s likeable, has a good story, a good family, working class appeal. He’ll get money because there are more than enough people out to beat Obama. Santorum can do it.

        • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

          CNN gets a women’s studies prof to write this screed:
          “Santorum’s stone-age view of women”
          http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/14/opinion/coontz-santorum/index.html

          • bgintn

            But, being critized by a known orthodox Marxist and Bolshevik-Leninist, Stephanie Coontz I think would be a plus. She was up to the late 70′s I know.

        • clowngirl

          he just said that he didn’t agree expanding women’s role in the military because he was concerned that their presence would cause “other emotions” and distract from the mission.

          Many women – and I’ll include myself – are going to see that as more or less sexist and an infringement on women’s rights. I also heard (though I haven’t confirmed this) that he said something about Sarah Palin needing to stay home and watch her kids when she missed CPAC in 2011? And that he distributed literature in Iowa saying that it wasn’t Biblical for a woman to be President? (I add the question mark because I heard that claimed but don’t know the original source )

          Anyway, even if it’ s just the “concerns” about women in the military, Democrats would take the whole “women are second class citizens” narrative and run with it -painting (among other things) Santorum’s pro-life convictions as being about taking away women’s rights.

          I live in Colorado and, let me assure you that strategy was EXTREMELY effective against Ken Buck.

          Ken Buck at one point said he was more qualified than his female primary opponent “because I don’t wear high heels”

          The Democrats ran ads CONSTANTLY repeating that quote and also framing his strong pro-life views as aggressively anti-woman. They also got away with lies and half truths that sounded more believable when played right after the “because I don’t wear high heels” quote ( namely the false claim that he said a rape victim had “buyers remorse” and misleading phrasing that made it sound like he wanted to ban a lot more birth control methods than he actually did)

          It was reported that there were a good number of people who voted Republican in every other race but not for Ken Buck.

          • lizzie

            thx clowngirl for the info that the same Dem tactic that swept New York statewide contests in 2010 “protecting women’s reporductive rights” was also used in Colorado.

            as to women in more forward combat roles? well, the tv series JAG covered how the USNavy progressed with female fighter pilots and REOs on carriers in the late 1990′s. The USN finally figured out how to deploy women on submarines in 2011 (the logistics were tricky).
            The alas short-lived tv show “The Unit” showed how a woman could even deploy with the most secret SpecialOps team.

            Santorum really showed ignorance in his comments. Sounds just like everyone who, 150 years ago, feared what would happen if women were educated! Santorum is stuck in the 1870′s, not even the 1950′s.

            Gingrich needs to stay in until after New York votes, I think that is April 24.

            Polls are meaningless at this point. I still believe Gingrich is the strongest general election candidate of those still active.
            watch Perry take down Romney (and someday Paul?) from his “strategic retreat” over next six weeks.

            Really shameful how Romney is trying to bully-buy this nomination.

          • trickamsterdam

            I’m sorry, but I honestly can’t tell if you actually think a fictional TV show is evidence that women in combat works or if you were making a joke?

            PS – Dems may be able to attack Santorum on these issues successfully, but w/ Newt’s marital history and general demeanor he’s even more of a walking gender gap (much as I like the guy).

          • lizzie

            sure looked like TV drama based on actual SpecOps scenarios.

            especially when one considers the people who created “The Unit”

            no, it was not a joke.

            and no one seems to mind Giuliani’s three marriages, or NYC Mayor Bloomberg and NYS governor Cuomo both being divorced men living-in-sin with highly successful women.

            adios!

          • Aaron Gardner

            I loved the show, wish it was still on, but this was still a fictionalized version of reality. You just can’t use the addition of a female cast member, late in the show’s run, as proof of anything.

            Whether women can perform equal to men in combat is worthy of real debate, but using t.v. shows as evidence one way or the other only serves to muddy the debate.

          • redcal

            I agree that a dramatic tv show is not really a good basis for an argument about reality, but Eric Haney was an active counterterrorist SpecOps solider and wrote several books in depth before creating “The Unit”. So there’s probably a lot of plausibility in the details and then a few unrealistic things that are thrown in for dramatic detail, just like ‘ER’ (created by Michael Crichton, former doctor). The problem is that we have no way of knowing (from the outside) which ones are which.

          • Aaron Gardner

            I was in one of those SpecOps units.

          • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

            “I still believe Gingrich is the strongest general election candidate of those still active.”

            polls disagree with you emphatically. Gingrich down 18 pts in a polls that had Santorum and Romney vs Obama much closer, down 8pts.

            Gingrich is alas unelectable.

            And dittos on the comment wrt hollywoods views on the military.
            Sad that so many are ‘informed’ of their views on things by liberal fiction shows attempting to sway opinions and not military experts / reality.

          • naraht

            That was from a Santorum staffer, Jamie Johnson. As best as I can find, he was kept on by the campaign.

            http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromthetrail/2012/01/18/santorum-staffer-questions-whether-god-wants-women-presidents/

            In regards to CPAC 2011 and Palin not quite as clear.
            http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/51953/rick-santorums-remarks-on-palins-motherhood-about-politics-or-gender/

        • unsk

          If you think like a collectivist Democrat solely in terms of groupthink, this strategy might have a chance. But it won’t. Here’s why.

          Obama set a trap for the dimwits of the GOP, and those yahoos backing Santorum.

          Obama has purposely chosen to switch the debate on abortion to contraception. He has once again denied our rights to religious freedom with his directive that Obamacare must pay for abortions and contraception.
          Thjs was a blatant violation of our First Amendment rights to religious freedom.

          All the Republicans had to do was stay on Constitutional ground in their reply.

          But nooooo, Ricky Baby couldn’t do that. He now wants a national “conversation” on contraception, and a continuing sermon from the national pulpit from presumably himself as the next President. Dimwit. Complete Dimwit.

          Look, the Atheist Left is trying to impose their will and their beliefs on us, and they are succeeding. This is a huge issue. You do not combat that power grab by unconstitutionally imposing your will on them with a power grab of your own. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

          By Constitutionally over-reaching again, Santorum has completely blown the easy, rock solid Constitutional argument against Obamacare’s denial of our First Amendment rights and in the process reinforced to a great degree the caricature of conservatives as controlling religious nuts who want to impose their will on what happens in people’s bedroom.

          The arguments against Partial Birth Abortion, Funding and Mandates for Abortion and Contraceptives, and Gay Marriage all have great foundations in the First, and Fifth Amendments, and all have great popular support.

          Arguments against contraception and gays in general have no foundation in the Constitution at all and dismal popular support. What Santorum has done is take winning argument on a must win issue and destroyed it.

          All of Santorum’s instincts on both religious and economic issues are fascist. He first reaction seems always to be to deny the Constitution. The difference between Rick and Buraq is that Rick is a Right Wing Fascist and Buraq is a Left Wing one. Both are bad. Very Bad.

          The American People will never in a million years vote for Rick Santorum. He is up in the polls now because he is the flavor of the month, and the public at large doesn’t know his positions. He has gotten little scrutiny, but, oh boy, is it coming. Once the the American Public find out his true positions, they will drop him like a hot potato.

          • hls87

            n/t

          • redcal

            …but I’m not sure I believe it. He’s a cunning politician, no doubt, but plenty of Catholic democrats (even in the media) were extremely displeased, and vocally so, by this issue over the last month. I agree that Santorum is over-reaching…I’m just not sure how this issue plays out over the rest of the year. It’s turning into a culture war election, and this may cause our (mostly disengaged, low-turnout) base to finally wake up.

          • Flagstaff

            nt

          • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

            “Obama has purposely chosen to switch the debate on abortion to contraception. He has once again denied our rights to religious freedom with his directive that Obamacare must pay for abortions and contraception.
            Thjs was a blatant violation of our First Amendment rights to religious freedom.”

            It’s not about abortion. It’s not about contraception. IT’S ABOUT FREEDOM.

            We need to hammer home that it is a throughly SOCIALIST notion that a ‘right’ to something extends to forcing people against their will and conscience to pay for it.

        • joeydavis

          Santorum has a clear pathway to the White House. It runs right through the rust belt, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indian, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Throw in Virginia and North Carolina with their deeply conservative social values and this election is close to over.

          Romney’s path is not nearly so clear. He has no platform to motivate voters and no core constituency to push his candidacy. That’s why he’s been polling at 30% for 5 years.

      • paladin1

        A Not Romney ham sandwich can beat Obama with all the debacle he has wreaked on this country and this economy. He has gotten on the bad side of the Christian vote with his birth control mandate, the general voter with his Obamacare mandate and general assault on the Constitution, and business with his job-killing mandates. The sky is not falling but these absolutist pronouncements of Obama victory need to.

        • lizzie

          there is zero enthusiasm for Obama. His best chance is either Romney (the negatives are endless), Santorum (those ‘ethnic’ dems will just sit home while suburban and urban women WILL vote), or either Dr. Paul (just the prospect of nomination will cause all the financial markets to go ballistic if they think the Fed will be shutdown)

          The lower the enthusiasm, the better it is for Obama. or a real 3rd party ticket.

          • paladin1

            that you apparently think is there. There is zero enthusiasm for Obama, as you said. People are not stupid, they are not going to vote for four more years of the garbage Obama is pushing and Republicans are not going to sit on their hands and let him take a second term. Once the Not Romney has the nomination, the enthusiasm will ramp up with the single candidate and all this “weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth” will be a distant memory. Too many folks here can’t see the forest for the trees and are just making silly declarations about doom and defeat. Only Romney is the candidate so much like Obama that enthusiasm will be hardest to ramp up for. Of course it will take work, but either of the two Not Romney’s can beat Obama.

            Ron Paul is not even a consideration in my thinking.

      • texanlady

        Polls no longer confirm what you are saying. Santorum has appeal to people that are raising families and have been hurt in the economy. Romney has the opposite effect on this. Santorum inspires trust something which Romney fails to do. I started out with Perry and am ending up with Santorum. The Texas primary has been moved back to May so it will be a long time before I can vote.

  • hobiecat

    It’s because your candidate has no clothes. He is the Thomas Dewey of our time. Why? Really?

  • jamesm

    Here is a snippet from him in an Op-ed in the Detroit News.

    “Their dream is alive in all of us who have ever called Detroit home. And with a Detroiter in the White House, that dream can be realized once again”

    Now this is too funny, I can’t wait to see pictures of him in a Lions or Tigers jersey.

    • redcal

      Good luck with that, Mittens…although it does seem like pretty much every other demo has showed him the door….

      • jamesm

        Get a picture of him in a chevy volt.

      • acat

        This cat doesn’t know the calculus of winning Michigan, but I’ll wager he’s trying to move union voters out of the “automatically opposed to Romney” column.

        I’ve said it before – Willard seems to be relying on his dad’s ghost in Michigan .. and I just don’t see that working for him.

        Mew

        • redcal

          on Santorum having more cred from both the left (union/populism) and the right (not being Mr. Romneycare) than Mittens, the ‘pincer’ strategy. Also explains why this probably isn’t just a rerun of Gingrich vs. Romney.

          http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/rick-santorums-pincer-movement/?hp

        • red_oakster

          I’ve always felt Romney was a weak candidate. That he has lost contests to Newt and Santorum and now trails Santorum in Michigan and Ohio polling is remarkable. But the guy does have money and if he wants to stop Santorum, Michigan is the place to do it.

          Still, Santorum definitely has a lunch bucket message that is more appealing to many in the rust belt. On and on and on to the convention I say! :)

          • joeydavis

            With basically the whole month of February and stocked with positive free press and a newly acquired bank account Santorum actually has a chance to build a fort. His ground game has been pretty solid when he’s had a chance to dig a trench.

            Romney’s been firing on Santorum for a week now and it really doesn’t seem to be working. Santorum’s favorables are in the 70s with Republican voters with a +40 positive/negative. Anybody that knows campaign strategy knows that attack politics usually backfire against candidates that universally liked.

            Romney thinks he can define Santorum for the electorate and he could when his NR was in the 60s. It’s too late now.

          • miconservative

            Now has Santorum up 9 in Michigan and it is for real. Don’t believe the slime campaign will be as effective against Santorum as it was against Newt, but we will soon find out. Romney’s op-ed in the Detroit News yesterday was abject stupidity. Re-litigating the auto bailout in the Detroit market, even with Republicans,

        • rightland1111

          Should Romney lose in Michigan, it will be serious trouble for Romney.

          According to Drudge, WILLARD is going to paint Santorum as a spender. That won’t be such a good idea when Santorum looks into the Big Dig and the investigations that went along with it when Romney was governor.

    • miconservative

      Detroiters don’t root for the Red Sox, Patriots, Celtics and Bruins. We root for the Tigers, Lions, Pistons and Red Wings. I grew up in Detroit too and no matter where I live those allegiances will never change. Just like he flip flopped on just about every issue, it will be interesting to see if he flip flops on his sports allegiances.

  • clintonformccain

    To be perfectly honest, I’ve lost all my enthusiasm for the Republican contest. It’s just been too many lurches towards too many “just shake my head” candidates.

    I’m not a big Mitt Romney fan, but if the Republican base decides to nominate a third or fourth tier candidate who can’t even manage to get on the ballot in every state, then they deserve lose the election in November.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      It is, after all, a Republican contest, and we really don’t want Clinton-loving indys butting in anyway. We’d like to nominate conservatives once in a while.

      • clintonformccain

        I’m sure that Bush and McCain were happy to get it.

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

          …but not your negative-disruptive opinions.

          • radicalrighty

            Damn, Doc, start at the top of this page and read down . . .

          • clintonformccain

            relentless barrage of negative, disruptive opinions from within the Republican ranks.

            I’m actually looking for discussion websites that are more reflective of a desire for a strong Republican campaign in the fall beating the living snot out of Barack Obama at the polls in November. That’s what I’m interested in.

            It just seems to me that the Republican party, at least for now, has taken its eye off the prize. It’ll probably get fun again when there is a nominee.

          • Marcus_Traianus

            IMHO this is a very fair point to be raised. Irrespective of individual orientation.

            Enthusiasm is way down in the Republican Party. While I am not a big fan of polls, some such as PPP reflect that. I would also further base that assumption on my informal associations, who quite frankly are least enthusiastic about Santorum. That includes some Independents who are becoming empathetic to Obama in the midst of all this negativity, lack of substance and movement to the “flavor if the day”. Imagine that for a moment. Especially in the context of General Election demographic complexities need to win that race.

            It’s no small wonder Obama is chortling.

          • lineholder

            Republicans have taken their eyes off the end-goal, which should be to do everything within our means to do to ensure that Obama is a one-term President.

            But I think the rally is coming, and ironically enough, I think it may come from an unlikely corner this time around. Obama messed up big-time in supporting the recent DHHS ruling on any level whatsoever. It is a very blatant act to place the authority of government over the authority of The Almighty, and people of just about every religion are rejecting it.

            For those of us who follow Judeo-Christian religious beliefs, it is the precepts taught within that religion that keep us to the side of what is of good in life itself. Even for those who do not follow any such religious beliefs, many of them have enough sense to recognize the worth and value of those beliefs and the part they play in our society as a whole.

            Just as the blatant over-reach of government power contributed to the rise of the TEA Party, so will the blatant attempt to usurp the authority of God Himself give rise to a unification of people of Judeo-Christian beliefs.

            Then both groups will rally behind a common standard-bearer to ensure that Obama is a one-term President.

            It’s still just simmering around the edges right now, but it will happen.

          • clintonformccain

            in this election is shifting the focus from the economy and the deficit to a fight over contraception and social issues.

            Government overreach is a solid issue for Republicans, but they really don’t benefit from fighting that issue on the religious right territory.

            Of course, I’m just an independent voter, so I’m sure that my opinion is of no interest to RedStaters and Neal will be along shortly to remind me again.

            As an independent, I would suggest to the Republcian candidates this time around: IT’S THE ECONOMY, STUPID!

            Here’s the thing. Republicans already get the so-con voter in November. So leading with that punch doesn’t expand the vote for the Republican candidate. In fact, leading with that punch tends to push away many centrist voters who would be inclined to buy a message of fiscal competence this time around. i’m not saying that Republicans should reject those positions, just that it’s not the election cycle to make them front and center.

          • lineholder

            It’s a winning issue all the way around. People are simply sick and tired of the status quo, sick and tired of having federal government dictate their lives and their futures and their children’s future, etc.

            Put it in the context of WHY we should return to the limits the Constitution of the United States places on federal government, and they have a winning message, both fiscally and socially.

            I’m not saying turn this into a social versus fiscal issue. I’m saying unite the two behind a common issue…one of limiting the power at a federal level.

          • texasref

            It’s everything…

            Where are we?

            And why are we all in this handbasket?

            Newt! Do something!

          • funwithknives

            The DHHS mandate can be combined into One very powerful message. It could and would bring new blood to the fold and more allies are always helpfuland in this case, essential.
            Every thinking person who in some way” gets nicked” by Barry & Co. is one more soldier/volunteer in this battle. America stands on a Knife-Edge, and the scales can only be balanced by weight of Active, Voting, Numbers.
            If it is abuse of proven-over-time economic principles or Constitutional Rights, it’s still abuse & those affected see it, and will add to the Balancing.
            What’s the harm in more allies?

          • joeydavis

            In case you haven’t noticed Republicans have lost every election when they backed away from their core ( Ford Dole, McCain, Bush I reelect) and they’ve won every election where they have swung hard right (Reagan, Bush I, Bush II).

            Republicans don’t win with Independent voters, they win with ideological voters. The Demographics point out why.

            42% of Americans classify themselves as conservative and 23% classify themselves as liberal. The remaining 35% are moderates. Moderates lean left about 2:1

            The trick for Republicans to win elections is turning out conservative voters. If conservative voters are motivated Republicans will win. If Conservatives are not motivated Republicans will lose.

            Every election in the modern era has followed this pattern. This one will be no different. Mitt Romney will lose in November, Rick Santorum will win in November.

            Santorum will rely on ideological conservative Democrats in the midwest (PA OH MI WI MN) with his economic populism. It’s a group disenfranchised by Obama and not reached by Romney. They are within Santorum’s reach based on his past electoral history.

            Romney’s chance runs through independents in the mountain west (CO NV NM) along with some breakthroughs in northeast (NH NJ MA and ME).

            Santorum simply needs to hold his own to win, Romney has to gain ground.

          • ffc99

            who needs to “study history”. John McCain didn’t lose in 2008 because conservative voters failed to turn out. He lost because independents were seduced into voting for Sen. (now President) Hope and Change.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            on the contraception issue. Obama did, and frankly, I think he’s become so arrogant that he’s starting to make a few mistakes. We can and should make the point that Obamacare is a fill in the blank piece of legislation that gets worse on a daily basis. It’s a gigantic overreach into our personal lives at an enormous fiscal cost. We ought to be able to win on that issue alone, but it’s going to take somebody who can articulate the message and stay on point without getting distracted by whatever Obama throws.

          • naraht

            Sometimes I think that Santorum would be quite willing to have Contraception end up as one of the primary fights in November. Especially with the “compromise” that Obama has proposed, do the Republicans want Santorum as their nominee and one of the three Presidential debates simply on Contraceptives, Abortion and Gay Marriage?

          • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

            “As an independent, I would suggest to the Republcian candidates this time around: IT?S THE ECONOMY, STUPID!”

            There isnt a single Republican operative or conservative who disagrees.

            BUT … guess what the ABC liberals wasted half a debate on? Gays, abortion and contraception. They couldnt even fit time in for the jobs crisis …. WTF?!?!?!?

            This is part of Obama campaigns politics of distraction.

            If Romney is the candidate, they run the OWS anti-1% play, if Santorum wins “he’s a theocrat”.

            The good news is that if Santorum is a disciplined enough campaigner, he will stay ON MESSAGE. “It’s the economy stupid!”

          • westcoastpatriette

            “Just as the blatant over-reach of government power contributed to the rise of the TEA Party, so will the blatant attempt to usurp the authority of God Himself give rise to a unification of people of Judeo-Christian beliefs.” Amen, sister! Preach it!

            I can feel it in the land…Obama is about to be blown out of the water as Americans utterly tire of his wicked rule. We will see civil disobedience on a par with the American Revolution as Americans, finally, say enough is enough and in rebellion to an unjust and ungodly government, storm the powers that be and demand retreat.

            Oh, what a glorious day!

          • lineholder

            It’s as if people of Judeo-Christian faiths are now awake…still standing in the shadows, perhaps, but they are alert, watchful, wary, waiting to see the direction this situation will go in and how it unfolds from this point forward.

            Complacency and apathy are being replaced with vigilance and a greater depth of conviction that I’ve sensed or seen in many years.

            I’m glad to see it happening, just like you are.

          • westcoastpatriette

            and it’s a combination of scary and exuberating. It is like that old saying that you don’t know what you had until it is gone. It took someone like Obama to show us that we are not great as a nation or as a people absent the blessings of God, but because of our history of honoring and loving Him. God is no respecter of persons (or nations) meaning we are not exempt from losing all of our freedom and blessings if we decide to continue to shake our fists in the face of God and exile Him from the land.

            As God-fearing people, we are patient and generally agree with the libertarian creed of “live and let live” if for no other reason than the realization that loving and honoring God is a choice that cannot be forced upon anyone. When the ungodly refuse to play by the same rules, however, and try to force us to deny our convictions to accommodate their ungodliness, game over. We have no choice but to fight with the same passion of Patrick Henry…”Give me liberty, or give me death!”

          • funwithknives

            kick the living S*** out of someone, or something.
            I’ve waited a good long time for enough *Oxes to Get Gored *, and the instant I saw this commence knew this Could BE a Big Plus.
            Then Barry came out last Friday and Jack Lew on Sunday, and even though I’ m agnostic, I got me some religion. From their own mouths, they bring Us, assistance. If that isn’t Providence, I just don’t know what is.
            tThis is one more example of why i always say: “Keep talkin’ ,Barry….Jest keep talkin’

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            at a Valentine’s Day dinner with 10 other couples from church, we were discussing this very thing. I made the point that however much we want to blame Obama and the liberals for this mess, we have allowed much of it to happen by doing nothing but going to vote every 4 years and expecting that to magically fix things. Things aren’t going to change overnight, and it’s going to take a lot of hard work and focus.

          • texasref

            This is when we’re SUPPOSED to hash out the pros and cons of our potential nominees. We surely don’t want Obama to do it for us!

            And thank God for the process or we’d have been stuck with Mittens by last Christmas. It’s enough to make me sick just thinking about if you had your way.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            He’s not a Republican. He doesn’t have our best interests in mind.

          • clintonformccain

            I have no vested interest in the Republican Party. My only interest is that the Republican nominee win the Presidency in November — and, ideally, that the Republicans win control of the Senate and the House. Other than that, I don’t have any rooting interest.

            Personally, I was hoping to support Haley Barbour in the Presidential nomination fight, but he didn’t run. I was an early Perry supporter before his moral wounds — self-inflicted and otherwise. I think he was the closest to “Reaganesque” style in the race, but he simply wasn’t ready for the natiional stage.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            .

    • texasref

      and that’s exactly what we’re going to do with our so-called “fourth tier candidate.”

      Like the Democrat guy was anything more than that…a “present-voting” state senator who barely was a U.S. senator and who can’t give a speech unless it’s on a teleprompter.

      Our fourth tier guy will beat their fourth tier guy on the issues every day of the week ending in “y.”

  • bonnman

    not that he will drop out at all but its a chance to do some irreparable damage. The one thing that will almost ensure a Romney defeat is if Newt drops out before Super Tuesday. Yes I know the Newt supporters will be upset but it would stop Romney.

    All the primaries before April 1st are divided proportionately this includes Super Tuesday states and the majority of Southern states Romney’s weakest support. If Newt stays in and peels enough delegates from Santorum so that Romney survives with even just a slight delegate lead then Romney is still the frontrunner (Romney already wins VA 49 delegates on Super Tuesday). Then the winner takes all states start, all Romney-establishment friendly states like CT, MD, NJ, NY, CA, OR, NC, NM, UT, IN there are a few exceptions in there like TX and PA but not enough. At that point Romney solidifies his lead and wins. Arguably the only chance is now or at least before Super Tuesday Newt needs to drop out and endorse Santorum.

    • clintonformccain

      …for the November election?

      • clowngirl

        n/t

        • renl57

          You yourself just pointed out how vulnerable Santorum is with female voters who value their personal independence.

          If the gender gap in voting is big enough–if Obama sweeps the female Independent vote for a big margin–he’ll beat Santorum easily.

          So if Gingrich drops out, and Romney can’t beat Obama, and Santorum can’t beat Obama, then the GOP can’t beat Obama.

          • clowngirl

            You are correct that I think Santorum would have a difficult route.

            I think Newt is going to make one more come back and then remain the front runner till he secures the nomination.

            It ‘s challenging terrain right now but his chances look good for Super Tuesday.

            And he needs another break out debate on the 22nd to finish reasonably in AZ and MI.

            And he needs Santorum to suffer a bit from vetting.

          • hls87

            Newt is a nonstarter, for too many reasons to list. He won’t be the nominee, It’s doubtful he’ll win any more primaries, even with GA coming up. He has nothing whatever to recommend him as a candidate or as a President. He’s a silly, shallow, self-obsessed jerk. He will never hold any position of public trust again, and thank God for it.

          • APA Guy

            …and paid .99/gal for gasoline. I have to think that consideration would work in his favor far more than his negatives would work against him in this political climate.

          • lapert

            Actually, the correct answer to both those pieces of trivia is Denny Hastert.

          • APA Guy

            Newt is the only candidate remaining, Dem or Republican, who was in a policy-making position when we ran balanced budgets and paid .99/gal for gas. If you give me token Rick Santorum as a rebuttal, then kindly detail how he, a random senator, deserves more credit for the accomplishments than the House Speaker.

          • lapert

            I think you are overestimating the country’s interest in debating, let alone reliving, who gets credit for the 90′s. I think it would be a great advantage to Obama to have Gingrich campaigning against him based on his record as speaker. He will send out Hilary and Bill to rebut – while he stays above it all talking about the future.

            It would have a similar effect to Kerry in 2004 having to engage in a debate over Vietnam.

          • APA Guy

            Then the country can be reminded how many times he won policy battles against them…brilliant idea!

          • lapert

            Again, your recollection of the 90′s and the country’s collective memory may differ here. You may find that they don’t see the history as one where he won the policy battles – from the government shutdown to impeachment you have to look at how those events are viewed now. Compare Clinton’s approval to Gingrich’s both in ’98, ’00 and today and tell me who the public is more likely to see as the winner of the 90′s.

            Of course, even that is besides the point. Even if Gingrich were able to forever change the legacy of the 90′s, I think it would be a complete disaster in helping him win election in the 10′s.

          • APA Guy

            The isuses of THIS election…budgets, taxes, jobs, gas prices…are the issues Gingrich whipped Clinton on in the 90s. Not quite sure why you waded into impeachment waters, but I’m sure you have your reasons.

            The public MAY ignore those similarities and Newt’s proficiency handling the salient issues of our time, but I doubt it. They are more concerned about paying bills and feeding their families than what YOU see as Newt’s weaknesses.

          • ffc99

            the Hill for a portion of the Gingrich speakership, I’m not sure if I necessarily agree with your assessment that Newt “whipped” Clinton with respect to the issues you mention in your post (he certainly had notable victories, but also his share of losses). However, even if your characterization of what happened is correct, I’d wager that the public’s perception of what occurred is quite different. When Newt stepped down from the Speakership he had terrible approval ratings, and was associated most closely with the unpopular government shutdown and impeachment (and to this day Newt has terrible favorable/unfavorables). When Bill Clinton left office he had record popularity numbers and to this day is associated with the good economy of the 90′s. Whether it’s fair or not (and I don’t believe it is terribly fair), this is how the public at large views what happened in the 90′s. Lapert is right on the money in his posts.

          • lapert

            It isn’t about objectives wins and losses (if that can even be determined) but the electorate’s perception.

          • APA Guy

            …nor are you an incontrovertable expert on everything Gingrich simply because you were “on the hill” for a portion of the Gingrich speakership. There were many people “on the hill” who are STILL in congress screwing up this country and failing to enact the sorts of reforms that Gingrich spearheaded. Perhaps the status quo is OK for those who wish to keep it that way, but that’s on YOUR conscience.

            Newt Gingrich led a conservative revolution that had more than just words behind it. We would not have had welfare reform, capital gains tax cuts that spurred a whole new age of economic growth, or balanced budgets had it not been for Newt Gingrich’s leadership in the House…PERIOD.

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

            and yet fail to understand it?

          • ffc99

            the impression that I’m satisfied with the status quo, because rest assured I am not. Leaving that aside, and accepting everything you say about Gingrich and his accomplishments is true (and believe it or not I agree with a lot of it), it doesn’t change the fact that the majority of the public has a very unfavorable opinion of him and his time as Speaker. He’s viewed as the guy who shut the government down and pursued the unpopular impeachment of President Clinton. As much as you’d like the discussion to be about welfare reform/balanced budgets/etc. (if Gingrich was the nominee), I fear you’d be disappointed. I believe Democrats would be very effective in arguing that the good times in the 90′s were achieved IN SPITE of Speaker Gingrich, not because of him. As lapert says, it’s not about truth, but perception…

          • lapert

            I guess if you insist that will be good enough for the voters. And no, we won’t be treated to headlines like:

            Bill Clinton: Gingrich opposed bill that led to balanced budgets
            Bill Clinton: Gingrich taking credit where it isn’t due
            Newt Gingrich, Bill Clinton battle over 1990s legacy
            Gingrich, Bill Clinton Both Claim ’90s Legacy

            And of course people won’t fallback on preconceived notions of whom they like and trust more. And of course we won’t be reminded ad nauseum that while Gingrich was impeaching Clinton for an affair he was carrying on one of his own, and of course the always disciplined Gingrich won’t feel obligated to respond that the impeachment was about lying and not adultery and of course the voters haven’t already decided who they preferred coming out of that the first time around.

            This isn’t about anyone’s conscience or history, it is about politics – and frankly your analysis and understanding of it seems quite limited and emotional.

          • JSobieski

            No matter what kind of accomplishment Santorum can try to assert about his time in office, its almost undisputable that Newt had a larger roll in bringing it about.

            Newt helped create the majorities that made things happen—while Santorum did not.

            Newt by all appearances helped shape the agenda—while Santorum did not.

    • goodgovernance

      No one drops out because of public pressure on a blog site, anyway. The only reason anyone drops out is because they’ve run out of money.

      That might happen to Gingrich (though I hope it doesn’t), but anything anyone says here or elsewhere won’t make it happen one second sooner than it otherwise would have. Santorum didn’t listen to Newt telling him to drop out, did he? It would be wrong to assume Newt doesn’t have the chance to rack up a few wins in the South, either.

      Santorum and his supporters need to stop focusing on the last war, and focus on the coming storm represented by Romney and his gang. The question isn’t whether Romney will go ultra-negative, the question is whether Romney’s supporters will accuse Santorum of siring five black babies out of wedlock, or six.

      I’m relieved to see Santorum’s campaign is aware of the fight ahead. I like the “Rombo” ad they just put out – they picked a great actor to play Romney!

      Here’s the link, hope it works: http://bcove.me/mvjfzvza

      • goodgovernance

        So you should be able to watch it just by clicking in the window:

        • WillWong

          When in fact most of the target of Romney’s negative ads had been Newt.

          • goodgovernance

            It states, “This time Romney is firing his mud at Rick Santorum.” And it makes the point Romney has been attacking various Republicans, not just Santorum.

            But as far as the Gingrich/Santorum imbalance in terms of who Romney’s attacked – trust me, Romney and his team are working to address that imbalance, right now, at this very moment.

            Watch your back, Rick!

        • littlehouse18

          It made me laugh a bit, but cringe also. I don’t like the shooting metaphor. And I’m actually inclined toward Rick right now.

          • funwithknives

            Or do I WANT to know? Probably mud, but still…..

          • goodgovernance

            The ad is great. Enjoy it!

          • funwithknives

            trifle mysterious, that’s all. OOOkey, if you get my drift.

          • Locked and Loaded

            It’s akin to paintball, nothing more.

      • bonnman

        What I’m saying is that the primary map and schedule favors Romeny. It breaks down roughly so that half of all delegates are decided proportionally and half as winner take all. But the winner take all states are very Romney friendly so all he has to do is survive til April1st. If Newt stays in for Super Tuesday it will almost guarantee a Romney nomination.

    • Scope

      VA is an open primary, and there are a lot of Paul supporters here in VA. He will get the cross over votes especially from the heavily populated NOVA area which usually swings elections to the Democrats. I personally couldn’t pull a lever for Paul, even to stop Romney who I despise, but that movement is already well under way, and that’s in addition to the anti-war liberal kooks that will happily vote for Paul.

      It appears that Santorum has come up 8 signatures short for ballot access in IN, and a Romney campaign chair gets to decide if Santorum gets on the ballot in that state. There are 4 IN citizens that have filed protests to keep Santorum off, and at least two of them are Ron Paul supporters who complained that he “has to play by the rules.” IN is also an open primary where Paul can pick up liberal votes. They are trying desperately to keep the ballot only with three names, Romney, Gingrich and Paul, so that Paul can keep gaining delegates. Paul doesn’t want to be the president, he just wants to play kingmaker at the convention with his delegates.

    • papabear

      The level of general “political intelligence” is fairly low. However, when I talk to my family/friends about the different candidates, every one has committed to support Santorum in the primaries. He’s not my preferred candidate, but the only other meaningful primary choice in Michigan is Romney. I’ll move to 48169* before I voluntarily** choose Romney.

      *48169 is the zipcode for Hell, Michigan.

      ** If the general election is between Obama, Romney, and nonviable 3rd party candidates, I will be forced to make the least evil choice.

    • carolina

      when they made the rules for this primary. Romney can’t lose.

      • zachv

        Romney can lose this. Big time. Not that I support Santorum — I definitely don’t — but he can over take Romney if these polls stay true.

  • deVere

    If so even doubters would have to admit that Divine Providence protects the USA.

    • aesthete

      tickets than that one.

      To think that I thought that Palin was one of the weaker candidates this year — how wrong I was!

    • clintonformccain

      …teasing a late entry into the contest.

      • MikeG

        The female host almost begged Palin to get in the race, and Palin unhesitatingly shot her down. Granted, things could still change down the road, but as of right now she’s not sending out any signals of jumping into the race.

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

    As posited in my diary, I would envision [after Mitt hits his Super Tuesday wall] a Lincoln-Douglas pact, whereby they compete in a non-negative fashion for the top-spot…through California.

    Granted, The Newt is down…but not out; granted, Santorum is surging. But the negatives of the latter–to be emphasized by Mitt during the next fortnight–will probably blunt his attractiveness [as detailed both in my diary and hyperlinked to Guzzardi's "Liberty Blog"].

    This “amalgamation” approach will marginalize “BHO-Lite” while accomplishing precisely what Sarah wants, a long-term campaign that presents all the positive facets of the GOP-Platform…and that builds-upon the energies of the TEA [Taxed Enough Already] Party Movement and the Evangelicals…plus the lunch-bucket ethnic-conservatives.

  • jgelling

    My guess is Rasmussen is overstating Romney’s support because their likely voter model is sampling party regulars who just aren’t that into Mitt. Rasmussen ends up labeling them likely voters based on past voting behavior, when many of them just won’t be there for him on election day. It’s been the story in nearly every contest so far: Mitt’s voters just have no enthusiasm and don’t turn out.

    Added to that, you have all these signs that Santorum is particularly strong in the Rust Belt, and I’d be surprised if Mitt isn’t in serious trouble in Michigan.

    On the bright side for Mitt, 5% of Arizona is LDS, and they’ll probably be 15-20% of the electorate in winner take all Arizona, so it’s probably impossible for him to lose there. Well, he could manage it, but it’d take a lot more work.

    • trickamsterdam

      Right, but as Mitt Romney would be the first to tell you while speaking in the third person during one of his speeches “Mitt Romney loves work”.

      Don’t know the exact figures, but didn’t Colorado have a pretty big Mormon population? I think he could be surprised in AZ. I’m a little different than other anti-Romney people in the sense that I think he’s actually in free-fall.

      I honestly believe he’s going to lose to Paul in VA…Paul does his usual sneaky thing where he lays in the weeds, then suddenly goes aggressive in the last week hopefully building off at least a loss in MI by Romney, stirring up the Not-Romney forces.

      Paul trades the delegates for a prime-time speech at the Convention, where he’ll talk mostly about gold. Romney’s campaign goes to a better place. Everyone profits. :)

    • Scope

      Gingrich challenged the winner take all status in Fla., and from what I understand the same arguments would apply to AZ. Don’t know if that has been resolved yet.

      • Archer

        according to the rules of the republican party.

        The party rules say that if any state moved their primary up as early as Florida did, that their number of delegates are cut in half and the election is required to be proportional rather than winner take all.

        Mitt supporters in Florida who arranged to move Florida earlier in the process so that if Romney lost Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina, the non-Romney candidates wouldn’t have time to raise money to effectively continue the race. And we saw that strategy worked as Romney was able to outspend Gingrich more than 5-1 in Florida.

        Choking off the opponent’s fundraising early in the contests was more important to Romney than the actual delegate count of the state of Florida. That’s a tactical campaign decision.

        Romney arranging to screw Florida out of half of its delegates was selfish at best. Those people who would have otherwise gone to the national convention are robbed of the experience. The would-be delegates who are candidates this year or who plan to be candidates in the future were robbed of their chance to network and fundraise among Republicans from across the country. Those would-be delegates won’t have that experience on their resume when being considered for party posts in the future.

        Now I don’t think that was an ethical thing for Romney to do. I think elections should be about convincing voters that your ideas are correct so that they’ll vote you into office. There’s just something that feels slimy about changing the timing of the election itself so as to choke off your opponents’ money so they can’t effectively respond to your deliberate lies about their history of promoting conservatism in an era when you yourself weren’t even in the party.

        That bothers me but apparently I’m one of the few that it bothers.

        But the same people who worked to move up the primary also decided to ignore party rules, keep the contest winner-take-all when it is required by the rules to be proportional, and then dare the party to have the guts to enforce its own rules.

        Selfishness and damaging the local party for your own political benefit is bad enough but blatantly violating the rules in order to gain a political advantage opens up a whole new vista of what it means to be unethical. I mean, selfishness and rudeness is impolite behavior and deliberately stunting the careers of some of the party faithful might be excused since their future places can be filled with other party faithful.

        But if someone wants to take the stance that its okay to ignore the rules of an election if it helps you win, we might as well roll back the 2000 Florida presidential election and give it to Gore who wanted to continually count and recount one tiny part of the state in an attempt to find or manufacture more votes in a location where he thought he could find them rather than recount the entire state where more voted might have been found for Bush.

        Disregarding the rules in pursuit of your goal is a fundamentally liberal behavior. They want to re-write the constitution to mean whatever they want it to mean at any point in time. They point to the preamble of the constitution where it says ‘We the people in order to promote the general Welfare do ordain and establish this Constitution’ and say that it means “In order to promote the general welfare, the government and the courts can do whatever they want whenever they want.They actively block anyone in government from looking for voter fraud, ignore voter fraud when its uncovered by someone outside of government, then point to the lack of discovery of voter fraud as evidence it doesn’t exist.

        Is there a whole lot of difference morally between “breaking party rules so that you can get what you want then daring someone to come try to enforce the rules” and “making recess appointments when the Senate isn’t in recess so that you can get what you want then daring someone to come try to enforce the rules”? If there is, I can’t see it.

        I can’t help thinking back to the early debates when Romney stridently insisted that Social Security was constitutional. Because of the format of the debates, none of the other candidates were able to pin him down and make Romney point out exactly which part of the constitution he thinks authorizes the national government to take money away from one group of people to give it to another group of people.

        Now, I’m not saying that Social Security is evil, that we shouldn’t honor the commitment we made to senior citizens who have planned their lives around Social Security checks, or that we should kill Social Security completely because its not authorized in the Constitution. But I am saying that anyone who claims to be a conservative (after years of stridently claiming that he wasn’t) who can find transfer of wealth payments from one group of citizens to another +in the freaking Constitution* could likely ignore what the Constitution says and find anything he likes in it.

        Transfer of wealth payments is undoubtedly in the constitution right beside the requirement to wear go-go boots, the requirement to own a dancing kangaroo, and the requirement to buy health insurance.

        • Scope

          for having the power to set the primary date in Fla. Rather it was the Fla. GOP that decided to move the date up, knowing they would have penalties if they did so, and did it anyway. The Fla. GOP again decided on it’s own that they had been penalized enough with losing half it’s delegates for breaking the rules, and made the statements that they were a winner take all state despite the 2012 GOP rules. Fla. and AZ were seen as winner take all states as written in the “preliminary” rules written in 08, in reference to the 2012 race. The final rules, as written in the RNC Green papers, clearly say that any state going prior to April 1, 2012 will award their delegates proportionally. Prebius said that he cannot change the delegate loss penalties for going early, because it is in the rules that he cannot change. Let’s hope he and the RNC hold to the same rules positions with the delegate proportioning.

          Don’t give Romney credit he doesn’t deserve, as it is even more so his enablers that have created the chaos.

    • texasref

      (for Romney of course)

      • Scope

        at the Drudge report almost from the beginning. I remember him only ever linking to negative articles about Perry. The day that he had 12 negative Gingrich articles was the icing on the cake, and the proof that he is in the bag for Romney. I’ve also wondered if Rassmussen was doing the same, but in a much more quiet and underhanded manner. I started really questioning the polling numbers early on, as none of them seemed to make much sense. I know that a poll can be swayed to garner the results you want. Would Rassmussen purposely do that?

        • izoneguy

          From my iPhone

        • jamesm

          He should have just wrote an opionion piece and say he was a Romney supporter. It seemed underhanded. Felt slimy

  • jamesm

    There is no question that Michigan is a must win for Romney. Looking at the polls-ARG, PPP and Rasmussen-Romney is definetely behind. Can he rehab his image in two weeks? Probably not. He needs to go negative but this will only drive down his polls and turn out. He had better start lining up some buses, Santorum supporters are more enthusiastic. He connects with people in a manufacturing state like Michigan. The danger for Romney is to be viewed as a carpetbagger from Mass. Santorum is a better debated than Romney so that won’t help Romney. Santorum wins by 3-5 points.

    • jamesm

      Democrats and Independents can vote in Mich. Alot are blue collar workers and will vote or Santorum. It is possible that PPP is taking these voters more into account than Rasmussen, Santorum by at least 7 points if they turn out. I lived in the state for two years and from what I saw this state has a good chance of going Republican in the fall if Santorum is the nominee.

      • jamesm

        PPP is polling Reps, Dems and Inds in Michigan. Rasmussen and ARG are polling only likely Repubs.They are not even taking into account Dems or Inds. It is an open primary which means dems and inds are voting also. Under this scenario Santorum will definetely win Mich. Under this scenario Santorum will blow out Romney.

        • tngal

          PPP’s own press releases give their excuses, er, reasoning.

          “Our polling in Florida obviously was not up to the same level of quality we’d had in the earlier Republican contests. We had Mitt Romney winning by 8 points and he ended up winning by 14. ”

          “Since our polls in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina were pretty good I’m more inclined to think that our problem was something specific to Florida …”

          http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/page/3

          And the day after the triple caucuses, the fall back position was yeah we were off but nobody else polled the states, because they;re hard to poll.

          “It’s hard for me to decide what to make of our polling in last night’s races in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri.
          On one hand our numbers didn’t come very close to giving a precise measure of the final outcome. Rick Santorum did much better in each state than our numbers had projected.
          On the other hand we were the only polling company that did any surveys in any of those three races. No one else even tried because of the difficulty in identifying the electorate for such low turnout caucuses and beauty contests.”

          http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/page/2/

          Funny thing is if you go to their homepage they have a banner headline that reads: Highly Accurate Polling Across the Country.

          Maybe its a bad year to be a prognosticator.

          • jamesm

            This is from Rasmussen this morning of likely primary voters

          • jamesm

            From Rasmussen:

            Perhaps more tellingly, Santorum now trounces Romney 55% to 34% in a one-on-one matchup among likely GOP primary voters. This is the first time any challenger has led Romney nationally in a head-to-head match-up. Santorum also leads Romney head-to-head in Michigan.

          • naraht

            “Nationally, Romney still wins 47% to 38% paired against Gingrich and 47% to 42% running against only Paul.”

            Against a person who is viewed here by many as either not being a Republican or being a member of the Republican Fringe, Romney is up by only 5%….

            Note, I’d love to see the 3 other H2H (Gingrich v Santorum., Gingrich v Paul and Santorum v Paul)

          • jamesm

            I don’t get how Romney beating Paul or Gingrich is more significant.

          • naraht

            which in turn questions Santorum’s strength.

            Put these all together and you can get the headline: Santorum only doing 13% better than Paul in Head to Head against Romney.

  • Adjoran

    PPP may have been shellshocked by being so off in the previous polls, and added an “enhancement” factor to Santorum that back-tests with those samples, but isn’t necessarily valid.

  • clintonformccain

    We should probably remember that this entire race has been characterized by a succession of polling lurches from one flavor of the month to the next. Trump. Perry. Cain, Gingrich. And now Santorum. It most cases, there wasn’t the slightest shred of rationality to the lurch in the first place, so the inevitable correction came as no surprise.

    For the most part, these lurches have really been an expression of, “sheesh, I wish there were somebody I liked better in this race….”

    • jgelling

      There’s never been a lurch in favor of Paul.

      Although according to Paul, he’s leading the race with his campaign to secretly take over the Republican party district by district. The actual votes don’t matter.

  • retrocon87

    I specifically remember watching one of the debates a few months ago– there were 9 people on stage, Santorum was standing at the far left next to Huntsman, his responses to the questions were nothing at all even remotely special, and my view on him was “he’s a nice guy and I do legitimately wish him well, but why the hell is he wasting our time running for president??” And now after all the other candidates have imploded, we’re trying to convince ourselves that he’s a solid candidate somehow only because of how much we hate Romney.

    The facts at this point are that Romney is still the same disaster he was back then (and probably now even more so) and that Santorum is still the same fundamentally weak candidate he was back before everyone else imploded… he lost a key swing state by 16 points, and come the time of the election 80% of the electorate will think he’s a homophobic lunatic who wants to take away their birth control. Unemployment is at 8.3%, and in head-to-heads Romney and Santorum are still both losing to Obama. Even if it stays over 8% it will be tough at this point with either of them, and if their entire argument is the economy and jobs and then unemployment winds up going below 8%, Obama wins easily.

    The only reliable thing we have to run on now is the budget. No matter what happens, there will still be a trillion dollar deficit by the time of the election, the debt/GDP ratio is already at about 94%, and after four more years of this it will be up around 120% which would be higher than Ireland and Italy are at now which is considered crisis-level. The only way to win this would be a brokered convention and drafting someone like Paul Ryan who can credibly convince people that no matter what happens in the labor market over the next few months, we are on the verge of a budget disaster that will take the entire economy down with it if nothing is done (which happens to be true). Neither Romney nor Santorum are capable of credibly carrying that message (nor does it even seem to be their plan to). They’ve been bashing Obama for the last year and the budget has not been central to any of their arguments (which is not exactly surprising considering that we’re talking here about “defender of the safety net Mitt” and “Santorum– right-hand man of GWB and Dick ‘Deficits Don’t Matter’ Cheney”). We need Ryan.

    • elayman

      Perhaps using entitlement austerity as a tactic to get ahead in the nominating race, despite the general-election risks, but at least minimally better than Santorum who argues that it doesn’t go far enough without proposing an effective countermeasure. I agree the budget should be regarded as a litmus test and the sane adult who knows what he is talking about, Huntsman, was the only candidate to have embraced Ryan unequivocally. Really, just how stupid are the early state republican voters Jon Huntsman should be the frontrunner and not a discarded footnote from this campaign.

      • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

        Early on, Romney was echoing Paul Ryan in talking about the debt and deficit. But Ryan’s CPAC speech was directed almost squarely at Romney. It basically told Romney to stop campaigning on biography and start drawing policy contrasts.

        The real tragedy of this race is that no one wants to win with a mandate for actually doing something. We have a candidate that is good at that sort of thing, Newt, but he called Ryan’s plan social engineering. We have a candidate with excellent credentials and experience, Romney, but he’s proven himself to be a lousy politician because he doesn’t understand the underlying philosophy. We have an excellent politician, Santorum, but he would be a recent convert to Ryan-style governance at best.

        So, retrocon is 100% corrent. We NEED Ryan.

        Write in Ryan for President

        • Scope

          is as good as voting for Obama.

          Ryan is wisely keeping his powder dry, and is keeping his distance from endorsing anyone in the primaries. If Ryan came out in support of Romney, and with an endorsement, any future plans he may have for higher office would contain the same egregious error that Santorum made when he supported Specter. Ryan is very smart to stay out of it.

          • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

            nt

          • Scope

            is a vote for Romney.

        • JSobieski

          and nobody did it.

          I agree with both you and Paul Ryan—-winning isn’t enough to solve the problem. We needed to campaign with a fairly definite solution, so that there would be a mandate for the solution.

          Newt is good at that kind of thing, and the “social engineering” was statement that didn’t even last 24 hours—so I wouldn’t magnify that too much. What is disturbing is that Newt hasn’t focused enough on the spending side, because in part of his experience that suggest that cutting is never a winning political issue.

          This was the year to campaign on budgetary issues, but nobody has done it so far. Seems to me that failing to do so in an R primary means it almost certainly won’t happen in a general election.

          Romney name dropped Ryan just as most of the other candidates did—-it was a way of ducking any specific questions on entitlement reform.

          Ryan, Daniels, and other suitable messengers really dropped the ball, and in retrospect, they should have had little confidence that the roster of Presidential candidates would have focused on a policy-based campaign.

          In short, Ryan should have run just to help focus the debate. He could have run officially while saying “I am just running to help shape the debate”.

          We needed some kind of pace car for this race, and it would appear that the lack of one is hurting us dearly.

          • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

            Honestly, I think Ryan’s speech was directed squarely at Romney because he was the one that popped into my head during the passage I quote below. Admittedly, this may be because I just don’t like Romney. But Romney’s standard stump speech is to just lament various Obama failures without actually proposing anything new. He doesn’t go for the big overarching vision, and he’s not very convincing. He, more than any other candidate, seems to be running a “win by default” strategy.

            Check out this passage from Ryan’s CPAC speech:
            “But you and I are here because we know there?s so much more to it than that. We know that there is more at stake. We know that this election cannot be just a referendum on President Obama?s failed leadership.

            Americans deserve a choice ? a choice between two dramatically different visions for our country?s future. As conservatives, we owe Americans that choice.

            Look, I know there are people in this town who are terrified at the prospect of an election with real alternative visions at stake. ?Make it a referendum. Win by default,? they say. Just oppose ? we can win that way. Don?t propose bold ideas ? that?s too risky.

            I?ll admit, the easy way is always tempting. But my friends, if that?s all we stand for, then what are we doing at here CPAC ? the place where so many giants of our movement came to advance their boldest ideas?”

          • JSobieski

            I too dislike Romney (I have him behind Newt and Santorum on my list).

            I also agree that Ryan was directing his comments at Romney.

            I am just surprised that any fan of a Paul Ryan would think that Romney had done enough to earn Ryan’s endorsement.

            Romney cites Ryan only when someone else raises the issue of entitlements. Romney never raises the issue.

            Ryan has to be very disappointed in the way the campaign has been conducted. The budget issue has fallen off the public radar, which is simply insane.

          • elayman

            My (very sketchy) understand of the Ryan plan is that it presumes an unemployment rate of like 3 odd % unemployment, growth over 5% – and that in very short order or the hole just gets deeper. Even if were politically palatable, I don’t see those kinds of parameters are anywhere close to do-able in this economy. The core concepts are also pie in the sky fake – sticking seniors with vouchers for a menu of competing plans that would leave most unable to afford insurance, savaging programs to the needy while benefiting the wealthy with deep cuts. I dare Romney and Santorum. Go ahead and try.

            Although running on a platform of shrinking the government through cuts in spending outside Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security and then doing the hard work upon taking office is very manageable. Mitt advocating lower taxes and no cuts in military spending, shoring up the safety net etc. as a cornerstone of his campaign is totally unrealistic and irresponsible.

          • JSobieski

            Empirical evidence suggests that markets/competition is the best way to increase quality, increase supply, and keep costs manageable.

            We need a marketplace for healthcare, but we are moving directionally in the opposite directon.

            If the Medicare approach of government setting the price for things, the USSR would have been an auto exporter in the 1970s.

          • elayman

            while strengthening its viability through private sector competition. There is a compromise in there somewhere. But without politically palatable sweeteners the already difficult job of selling the overhaul plan gets totally impossible.

          • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

            for something more specific. It was very early in the campaign.

            I didn’t think Romney earned it, just thought he could earn it. Definitely don’t think so after the CPAC speech. I think Ryan will stay out of it until we have an effective nominee.

      • littlehouse18

        ..

        • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

          Could be interesting.

    • northernrockiesguy

      am with Retrocon on this. I am praying for a miracle, any kind of a miracle to send oba-mao back to Chicago. We are living on borrowed time. Someone with Paul Ryan’s expertise in budget numbers is our best chance of surviving as a nation for another 10 years.

    • littlehouse18

      I kept saying to myself that I felt Santorum was the smartest guy on stage, and I agreed with most of his points, but that he didn’t have a chance to get the nomination compared to the bigger names on stage. Plus I thought Perry would do much better.

      But Rick showed that he is a real fighter and worked harder than anyone to earn votes in states where he had a chance. He supposedly met with individual voters, drove through snowstorms, etc. Now I have the most confidence in RS, IF he can get past the media onslaught. It’s a crucial test he’ll have to pass.

      I think Obama actually has now concluded that Santorum is the biggest threat, and would prefer to run against ‘rich man’ Romney. Santorum has a lot of strong positions that resonate with ordinary citizens, and the media is now trying to obscure them by focusing on social issues. Why else would they be bashing him so soon? If they thought he was no threat, wouldn’t they wait until he got the nod to bring out this fake contraception issue?

    • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

      Yes, we had a field full of flawed candidates who all imploded and in particular the ‘serious’ candidates – Perry, Pawlenty, Huntsman … went nowhere … because the the MOST flawed candidate – ROMNEYCARE Mitt – was sucking up all the establishment oxygen, leaving him conenient battling flakey anti-establishment candidates (“Remember when Bachmann was curiously uninterested in digging against Romney?)

      Moreover, key point – the economy is slowly healing – its better now than last year and will be better by november.

      Oh the budget is our only hope? The budget we just blew by caving on payroll taxes and which we wont dare go to the mat vs Obama since the July pseudo-budget deal/cave?

      “The only way to win this would be a brokered convention and drafting someone like Paul Ryan who can credibly convince people that no matter what happens in the labor market over the next few months, ” …

      … I’d go with Mitch Daniels – Governor = executive experience.

      Barring that, grit your teeth, man the lines, and help Santorum win.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    KEY POINTS – NEWT IS UNELECTABLE, OBAMA IS LEADING AGAINST ROMNEY/SANTORUM ABOUT THE SAME.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/13/news/la-pn-poll-santorum-surges-past-romney-both-republicans-trail-obama-20120213

    But both Republicans trailed Obama by sizable margins. Obama led Santorum by 10 points among registered voters nationwide (53%-43%) and led Romney by eight points (52%-44%). Obama?s lead over Newt Gingrich, who has faded in the GOP race, was 18 points (57%-39%). In previous polls in November and January, Romney and Obama were roughly tied. Obama has moved up because of support from independent voters, 51% of whom now back him against Romney, a gain of 11 points since last month.

    The latest poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press was conducted among 1,172 registered voters nationwide. It found that Santorum has become the clear favorite of tea party supporters and white evangelical Republicans. He wins support from 42% of tea party Republican voters compared with just 23% who back Romney. Santorum?s margin among white evangelical Republican voters was almost the same, 41% to 23%.

  • retrocon87

    Love Romney or hate him, he is the most conservative on immigration, and with that, McCain campaigning for him, and dumping $10 million or so into it he will probably be able to pull it off.

    As far as Michigan goes, he’s down in the polls but unlike the other states where people just flat-out weren’t enthusiastic about him, there are actual policy reasons that Michigan voters won’t vote for him…. he was unequivocally against the auto bailouts which even Michigan conservatives in Congress supported because they knew that opposing it would be political suicide… and since then, most people in Michigan believe it’s worked and that on the whole it was a good thing. You can come up with arguments about crony capitalism and government bailouts being bad (which I agree with wholeheartedly) but the overwhelming view in Michigan is that the bailouts completely saved the Michigan economy from disaster. Romney ran an op-ed in the Detroit Times today trying to address it and it was pretty weak. Santorum wins Michigan, Romney wins Arizona.

  • clintonformccain

    <a href=http://apnews.myway.com//article/20120215/D9STLUK80.html]AP article

    But there are limits to what Santorum’s little team can do.
    He refuses to hire a pollster and pledges to campaign from his gut. He has brought on veterans from Mike Huckabee’s orbit, including the top spokeswoman for Huckabee’s 2008 presidential bid and Michele Bachmann’s 2012 race. Other aides, too, are coming aboard as Santorum’s strategy meetings have grown from just one state to a handful of competitive races.

    Yet he lacks a headquarters to have those meetings. Often, Santorum’s top aides confer over conference calls or Skype.

    “We’re building,” Santorum said. “We’ve got a great volunteer base. In some states we’re going to have staff. Other states we aren’t. We’re going to use volunteers.”

    • clintonformccain
    • littlehouse18

      no matter who it is.

      If Obama’s new assault on our defense capability doesn’t convince us of that, we are lost. He’s putting us on the path of existential danger.

  • The_Gadfly

    1. He was the establishment choice.
    2. His selection was inevitable for various reasons.

    Newt puncture #2 in South Carolina. If he hadn’t imploded he could have taken it from Mitt. But that did open the door for Santorum, and he finished off #2 with his trifecta.

    As for item #1, well, that doesn’t really sit well with the base, which is not the establishment.

    Look, it’s time to get over trying to pick “the conservative” because none of the candidates who remain are. Mitt keeps trying to wear the suit, but frankly he looks like Dukakis sitting in a tank every time. Newt has a decent claim to the title for his work (always disparaged by the establishment he had to fight to do the work) with the Contract with America and taking back the House after more than 40 continuous years of Democratic rule. But if you look at him realistically, he’s always been a “big ideas” guy, even when common sense tells you his “big ideas” are actually really, really, BAD ideas. Santorum comes from a purple state and has therefore made more than a few votes to keep Dems happy and voting for him in the polls.

    My heart is with Santorum, my head is with Gingrich. Santorum has the gut instinct to do the right things by the country, even if he has sometimes voted differently at the behest of party leaders or to keep votes in his state. Gingrich is VERY good at accomplishing a political goal he focuses on and wants. Repealing Obamacare and getting the government out of the way of an economic restart seem to be his two current goals. I don’t have anything good to say about Mitt, so I won’t say anything about him. While I do believe in recognizing reality, I’m tired of the negative attacks coming from others, so I’m going to work hard not to make them myself.

    • rightland1111

      I am with you Gadfly, my head tells me something different than my heart.
      It is my opinion that Romney will not win in any debate with Obama. Too many negatives and Obama has already painted the picture for the American electorate, most of whom are uninformed. Romney is a fat cat that has taken all your money, etc. etc.

      Both Gingrich and Santorum are good debaters. I agree that Gingrich has the smarts to repeal Obamacare. I believe he is a visionary. However, his negatives are high. Obama will use his past marriages to take him down. This won’t work with the men, but the women will fall for this and apply their personal experiences, either with parents or former partners and vote based on that.

      Santorum will be painted by Obama as a religious zealot. This, I hope will backfire on Obama.

      The new spin on the abortion issue and Obamacare is this: The Church is tring to over ride the law and has crossed the line, trying to dictate to the government what policy should be. Nice…how they turned that around.

      By the way…where is that Congressman Stupak…not a word from him…ummmmm.

      • texasref

        What a piece of work that Benedict Arnold was!

  • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

    Before you guys run out and order your sweater vests let me point out a few things. People are whining about Romney’s brutal SuperPAC ads and the carpet bombing of his opponents. This is exactly what we need to see in our candidate. Let me remind you that we are not running against the Girl Scouts. We are running against the Obama Political Cartel made up of political gangsters, union thugs, the MSM, the Global Left, and ACORN clones. Do you want somebody who’s going to sit on he couch and hold hands with Chairman One-bama or do you want someone who will rip him apart, expose him for what he is, and defeat him in November?

    • Scope

      the carpet bombing of Romney’s opponents has turned many voters off, and I would think has added to the lower voter turnouts. I’ve already read that Romney, and especially his super PAC are already planning a blitzing of both Santorum and Gingrich in Mich. He already pulled that rabbit out of his hat in Fla., and many more than you give credit to are tired of the trick already. His bombs will not keep hitting their targets, but will in fact come back at him. Scorched earth against Obama is one thing, totally and completely trying to destroy those in your own party is another. In the end, Romney will wind up completely destroying himself, and it will be well deserved.

      • rightland1111

        and here is the proof.

      • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

        If you think Charmian Obama will hesitate for a minute to carpet bomb the GOP candidate into oblivion, you have been watching too much of the Disney Channel.

        This is reality. It’s not a video game. It’s not political theater on cable news. Chairman One-bama is a ruthless Marxist Gangster and is surrounded by ruthless Marxist gangsters. In fairness to Santorum I’m not convinced that Romney is sure to beat Chairman One-bama either, but he has more money and machinery than Santorum and has a better chance to survive the relentless attacks from the Global Left.

        • joeydavis

          The GOP organization is every bit as strong, well trained and well funded as the Obama machine. Along with the GOP, NRA and Right to Life have well trained armies well funded, well trained armies waiting for marching orders.

          These organizations are not in play during primary season. So don’t be fooled by the resources argument.

          While a Romney nomination may not activate the conservative base in the fall. You can bet the farm that the establishment will toe the line for Santorum or Gingrich in the fall.

          • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

            “The GOP organization is every bit as strong, well trained and well funded as the Obama machine.”

            You have been watching waaaaaaaaaaaaay too much of Hannity.

        • littlehouse18

          You are quite right about the Obama Gang.

        • Scope

          and then some. I have no doubt that will happen who ever our nominee is. My disagreement is with Romney completely trying to destroy his opponents, to the point that they will be so damaged, honestly or not, that they will never be qualified to run for even dog catcher in the future.

          As has been pointed out below, Romney has not exactly been any too tough on Obama, and couldn’t even bring himself to say he was a socialist. What exactly can he go after Obama on? He’s been on Obama’s side of most issues at one time or another.

          It is beginning to appear that Romney, and his surrogates, know he is in serious trouble with the voters, and they are willing to take everyone else down with them/him if he can’t have the nomination. That is very pathetic.

          • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

            This has done severe damage to the party and to our chances to beat Obama.

            It’s fair to blame Romney for it and to refuse to support him on that basis.

    • paladin1

      is that Romney has proven to be ruthless in dealing with his Republican rivals but has shown to be much less aggressive in his comments and attacks on Obama and his policies. Because Romney is the establishment anointed candidate and the establishment is terrified to speak ill of Obama because they think it does not poll well to do so (idiots), it does not follow to many voters that Romney would aggressively go after him as he has done with those party rivals who are not supported by the party. The “ripping him apart” hyperbole is overblown and very unlikely if Romney is the nominee.

      Over and over it appears that Romney is selling a bill of goods that no one really wants and will not support in the end if there is aviable choice between them. Current polling looks like his viability and inevitablity are waning like the harvest moon. Good riddance.

      • Scope

        I addressed the fact that Romney has tried to kill off all of his competition on the right, but, I do agree that he has been easy peazy on Obama. I remember in an early debate when he refused to call Obama a socialist, and that is a mild critique of Obama.

        In addition to wanting desperately to see Romney off the Republican candidate stage, and never to be awarded the nomination, I equally desperately want to see all the pundits, talking heads, moving lips, and those Congressional elitist supporters of Romney to be as embarrassed and as red faced as possible. I don’t know if they will ever learn to not try to fool mother nature, in trying to force someone on the voters who the voters obviously don’t want, but at least we are now able to develop a list of those to never give credit to or to depend on for any fairness or honesty shown to all of the candidates. Ann Coulter is going to be crouching in a very crowded environment under the desk when Romney flames out, and he is already headed there. Imagine, some of these same people are the ones pointing the finger at Santorum for supporting Specter. Utter hypocrites.

    • goodgovernance

      are already coming back to haunt him. Smart move by Rick!

    • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

      to a fight on Obamacare either. Or a moderate to a fight with a liberal (Dole, McCain, Romney).

    • The_Gadfly

      expose him for what he is, and will defeat him in November. I’m just having trouble deciding whether it’s Gringrich or Santorum. Rick has the more populist appeal, but Newt is like a bulldog when he sinks his teeth into someone. It’s the other guy whose own run as a leader looks like the sort of person who’d share a couch seat with the current incumbent.

      • WillWong

        Not only is Newt a bull dog, he is also a statesman, a historian, an intellect, and a proven conservative leader. He is in a class of his own, imho!

  • Ausonius

    According to one of the least accurate of the polls, Quinnipiac, a survey on the telephone of 533 voters shows Santorum by 36 to 29 per cent.

    See:

    http://www.cantonrep.com/newsnow/x962234482/Santorum-edges-Romney-in-poll-of-Ohio-voters

    If that turns out to be even close to accurate, Romney will need to scramble even more, but he has been scrambling for 8 years.

    At times a majority just will not buy what you are selling, no matter how much advertising, logical and emotional, positive and negative, you throw at them.

    They just don’t want your product.. And we might want to get ready for a really interesting convention!

    • jamesm

      Slow and painful. Don’t knock him out yet, Establishment needs to be taken to task for this fiasco

      • Ausonius

        Oh will the bleating and snorting and grunting echo across the land!

        Establishment, hear-see-oppose-no-evil RINO’s will not know what to do, unable to believe that their bland engineered-to-fail candidates have not found a majority, and have not really enthused a majority.

        Whether Rick Perry is resurrected, or whether an apparition from Florida (Rubio, West) or Wisconsin (Walker) or Ohio (Kasich) or somewhere else appears, such a person is bound to be more welcome than our present squabblers.

        • littlehouse18

          I’m scared that there will just not be enough time to build his campaign before the general. And you can bet some will have a tantrum and sit it out because their guy worked hard all along and then someone else gets it handed to him.

          • Ausonius

            I have no fear about the time issue: it can be done, especially in the Internet Age, and a candidate who enthuses people will have all sorts of ad hoc campaigns volunteers springing up in his favor.

            Is it possible such a candidate is (practically) right here?

            He has visited here at Red State, and today’s (Feb. 15, 2012) has an editorial from him about the pork-barrel “Highway Robbery Bill.”

            Senator James DeMint is his name. :)

          • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

            The establishment would NOT take or tolerate DeMint as an option. He will have the same problem Haley Barbour would have. The New York / DC / LA media have anti-Southern bias and would play up any racial issues, if he ever shook hands with a KKK member, etc. and turn the election into one about race.

            Since the establishment was ready to get behind Mitch Daniels last year, I think he’s the only viable option we have right now.

            There may be some others, but they mostly have their hands full and/or arent ready for challenging Obama. Jindhal might be one possibility but he is also unknown, young. OTOH he is smart.

      • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

        It is Mitt’s ambition to be President, dont blame the establishment for that.

        Blame them instead for being so idiotic to support the guy who authored and supported the prototype of Obamacare.

        If we had disposed of Romney EARLY we wouldnt have this fiasco of

  • Scope

    around June, as I’ve read is the timeframe, it is going to be bad for Romney. If they uphold Ocare in full (doubtful), then Romney will be stoned with being the original architect, who first signed a law forcing private citizens to purchase something. His Romneycare advisers, who also advised Obama and the liberals with Ocare will be front and center, as the ones that got the ball rolling. If the SC decides that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, then Romney will be seen as being willing to trample on the constitution, just as Obama has with Ocare. Either way, with the build-up to the decision, the closer it gets, the more the negative focus will be on Romney. There is no doubt that Santorum, and Gingrich will keep hitting the message that Romneycare is bad. If Romney isn’t the clear and decisive choice by the time the SC decides, then he may as well save his and his donors money and go home. It’s not looking like he is headed in a positive direction.

    • mike90815

      What’s the difference between forcing me to purchase health insurance and forcing me to purchase car insurance? True, it is the State of California that mandates I purchase car insurance, rather than the Federal government, but I’m still being forced to purchase something, and if don’t will be penalized. I don’t know if other states have this mandate. In any case, why is there no equivalent outrage about being forced to buy car insurance? I’d honestly like to know what the objectionable difference is. Or perhaps there is a silent majority of people opposed to mandatory car insurance laws.

  • Scope

    are coming out and attacking Santorum for votes on legislation that they voted the same on. It seems that the Romney campaign keeps hitting it’s head against a brick wall.

    • rightland1111

      where spending was fast and furious…and it took forever, costing the State mega bucks.

      • lineholder

        All the way around, whether it applies to fiscal or social issues, this is becoming a central point that Republicans should be emphasizing day in and day out. This has now become a key issue for both Fiscal Conservatives and Social Conservatives, along with many Libertarians as well. What’s more, it could be a point of question for Independents who either understand how our economy really works or who are active members in a Judeo-Christian religion.

        The problem that I see for Santorum on this point is that he’s made a couple of comments indicating he could be just as easily persuaded to act within the context of an over-reach for the federal government as the Obama admin has proven itself…both with the best of intentions, supposedly, but neither one indicative of genuine respect for the limits that the Constitution of the United States places on federal government.

        • Scope

          would throw a blanket over most everything the Obama administration has done, and is a much needed message and focus. Then you have others wanting very detailed and specific plans for every issue they would face as the president. Look at the attacks that were thrown at Perry for saying that SS was a ponzi scheme, and the worst of those attacks came from the right. Sure, it can be said in a more professional or presidential manner, backed up with charts, graphs, and economic information, but no matter how it is voiced or expressed it will be hit with major resistance, as half the country is now receiving some sort of government check.

          IMHO, the election will be decided on who the voters think can create the most jobs. The best plan for an immediate bump, if not more, would be to unleash an all out energy plan, with a focus on fossil fuels, clean coal and nuclear,that will not only create thousands if not millions of jobs across the country, and in many employment sectors, but it would also lower energy costs, and put us on a sure footing for energy independence.
          Once we can get more people back to work, and out of the government dependence line, then we can start going after entitlement reforms in a serious way. With unemployment still so high, and the seniors successfully scared into thinking that some want to take their SS and Medicare away, it is my opinion that it is an issue not yet ripe for a current serious debate.

          As to Santorum over-reaching, I don’t see any of the candidates left that don’t pose the same threat, just to varying degrees.

          • Scope

            by this spring. That will once again awaken the Drill Here Drill Now crowd. It could be a major winning position for the R candidates to keep pounding.

          • rightland1111

            those people still working and paying into SS and Medicare are going to get a real surprise when they try to collect…if the country has not gone under by that time. Reason, you get what you pay into it and with just 2% being paid in they are going to find that their SS check is not what they expected. Is this how the government is going to take down SS for the country…call it a Middle Class Tax Cut?”:

          • Scope

            The SS recipients get far more out of the system then they have ever paid in, depending on how long you live once you start collecting the benefit. I knew a woman who went on SS disability in her 50′s, switched to regular SS when she was 65, and lived until she was just shy of 90. She collected SS for more years than she even worked or paid into it.

            It is my opinion that the OWS movement has been started, promoted and supported by the liberals that will use them to protest in the streets, similar to what is going on in Greece currently, should the Republicans try to reign in the spending on the out of control entitlement programs. It may be that we will have to hit the skids as badly as Greece has in order to even whisper the word “cuts” let alone austerity.

          • rightland1111

            About the SS…I know what you mean concerning the total amount collected and then paid out, in that people live longer and there collect more than they put it. But…what I am wondering is this. This Middle Class Tax Cut might come up to bite some people. Say that I am not contributing $X of money because I don’t have to. Well, when you look at what your “government entitlement” is…it is no longer called SS, the monthly amount will be smaller. If they do away with the FICA Tax all together, so it appears that people have $$ in their pockets NOW rather than later…what happens to those people when they hit SS age? That’s my point. With inflation already kicking in…who is going to live on less without having to be more dependent on the government, i.e., foodstamps, etc.

            The reason I looked into this was because of this Separation of Church and State…and I came across this and wondered if there was more to this then I was seeing.

          • lapert

            The payroll tax rate reduction does not impact future benefits. Employees are credited as if they were paying the full rate and the difference is credited to the ss trust fund from general revenues..

  • jon11

    last night i listened to ed schultz talking about what a wonderful guy rick santorum is.

    this moning, Reverend al sharpton is touting him.

    the left would love nothing more than a santorum victory in michigan and msnbc is working over time for him.

    politics makes strange bed follows.

    Word is Romney people aren’t worried about michigan

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72889.html

    They are taking it seriously but they know its neck and neck, not 15 points for santorum, and santorum hasn’t been vetted, which starts today.

    • jamesm

      This is an open primary. ARG and Rasmussen only polled Repubs. Do I think Santorum will win by 15? No but by at least 6-7 and that would be a knockout. At least a one two combination with Santorum leading in Ohio

    • reality1234

      Santorum is quoted as saying birth control harms women. That alone wouldl send millions of suburban women running back to the Dems, if Santorum were to be the GOP nominee.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/santorum-birth-control-harms-women/2012/02/15/gIQASRukFR_blog.html

      Anyone who votes for Santorum is stepping smack dab into the Democrat trap, a trap which seeks to paint the GOP as obsessively opposed to birth control and contraceptives.

      Why? Because that is what Santorum is best known for. That is what people think about when they think of Santorum.

      Do you really think this sudden White House push against the Catholic church/evangelicals is coincidence???? It is designed to motivate the pro-life hard line voters to get out there and #1 — select Santorum as the GOP candidate …. and #2: paint the GOP as rabidly pro-Life to the exclusion of everything else.

      As much as I support all things ProLife, the GOP cannot let that become the major defining issue of this campaign!!!

      • bonnman

        I haven’t yet heard him discuss how this will play a key role in his policies. Politicians can have their own personal perspectives without influencing their ability to govern.

        • aesthete

          that he’s going to have a “national conversation” about contraceptives, and that it is a public issue which affects us all.

          None of that is legislation, but voters will interpret it that way, given Santorum’s career and his views on other social issues and how they intersect with government.

          • bonnman

            But I suppose Sen. Blunt’s legislation forces the issue front and center I guess we can see if Santorum expands on that.

    • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

      This is possible. Lots of opptys for Dems to extend this to the convention.

  • Whacker77

    I’ve made this point repeatedly, but I think it needs to be made over and over again. If this primary process has taught us anything, it’s that none of these candidates have the ability to defeat Obama. Despite a horrible economy and unemployment near 10% last Fall, only Romney occasionally had a lead against Obama.

    I’m not for Romney, I’m not for Santorum, and I’m not for Newt. I am, however, for someone who can beat Obama. That person isn’t in the race right now so it’s incumbant on us to find a way to get that person into the race. If that means we must be tactical voters in every state left on the card, so be it. We must find a better choice or we will lose in the Fall.

    Our best bet is it becomes very clear in the next month or so Romney is all but ruined. If that happens and people remain unattached to Santorum and Newt as reasonable and plausible choices, a brokered convention can be produced. I see that as our last hope.

    The perfect scenario would be for a new choice (Jeb, Christie, Rubio) to announce he’s running in early June. That would give the candidate time to organize a campaign structure, raise money for advertising, and almost three months to win over delegated before the convention. Any of the three names I listed could do that quickly.

    If this election really is the most important of our lifetimes, we can’t settle on a wounded and inadequate choice. We can’t send one of these clowns into the lion’s den just because we feel we must. The primary process has become broken in 2012, but we have a chance to fix it before it’s too late.

    • earlgrey

      nt.

  • lineholder

    And there may not be any way to extricate himself from it at this point. If he had been genuinely honest with the American people from the get-go, he might have avoided it.

    He’s a moderate, and he should have run as a moderate. If he had stood on a national stage and said, “I’m a moderate, but given the circumstances our nation is facing right now, I believe that we need to follow fiscally-Conservative policy positions in order to change the course of direction our nation is taking”, and then went on to explain what kinds of fiscally-Conservative positions he had in mind, the likelihood would have been greater by far that people would respected this type of honesty.

    Sure, Conservatives would have questioned it, but it would have let us know that the man has enough of discernment to look at the situational context as a whole in defining what kind of policy actions are genuinely needed right now.

    As it is, he’s attempted to paint himself as being Conservative yet stood on the national stage and defended progressive policy positions.

    After the “Obama experience”, the ONE thing that a lot of Americans are actually afraid of is being led down the proverbial garden path yet again. I’m not sure it matters to them who it comes from or why…they just don’t want to get “taken”, Leon.

    Romney isn’t a stupid man, but he has behaved foolishly in this particular situation by not recognizing the human element of the political environment he’s facing. He’s dug himself into a hole of his own making, and I’m not sure there’s a way out of it at this point either.

    • mike90815

      Great insight into what Romney should have said. It would have been honest, and while I might not agree with the guy, I’d respect his honesty and candor…that’s a sign of respect for the voting public.

      Instead, Romney has foolishly pandered. “Severely conservative” my ass! Romney’s a fake, and he doesn’t respect the people whose votes he is courting…the worst kind of professional politician.

      But the thing that makes my skin crawl most about Romney is that he so desperately wants to be president, coupled with the manner that it is his birth-right. I’m sure he’s a smart businessman, a good family man, and I’m sure he’s a patriot.

      But such an undignified, needy one.

  • Archer

    that if the election were held today, 94% of Americans would be surprised because they thought the election wasn’t happening til December.

    Honestly folks, why all the concern about polls which show matchups of the various Republican candidates vs Obama? The vast majority of the country aren’t paying a bit of attention to the election and won’t start paying attention til Spetember.

    The republican candidates are busy running to get the republican nomination and trying to reach out to republican voters. They aren’t spending their days running against Obama or spending their time and money reaching out to voters who have no intention of voting in the primary.

    Disinterested people who aren’t paying attention to the election and who aren’t being reached out to by the candidates are picking pretty much at random among candidates they barely know the name of and who they know nothing about.

    Since that’s not going to be the case in November regardless of who the republican nominee is, why worry so much about the current opinions of people who haven’t yet put any thought into who they want as president?

    Obama has done a number of vastly unpopular things. A republican candidate should be in favor doing a number of massively popular things. Any republican candidate ought to be able to win that matchup in November no matter what polls say today.

    In my opinion, you should vote for the republican candidate who you want to be president. By the time the election comes, all the sound and fury of the campaign today and the polls of today will only be a distant and irrelevant memory.

    In the 1980′s I would have thought Gingrich or Kemp would be president at this time or at least running with my support. In the 1990′s I would have thought it’d be Gingrich, Kemp, or JC Watts.

    So today its Gingrich? I don’t have a problem with that. Romney when he’s been in office before governed like a liberal and repeatedly insisted he wasn’t a conservative. I’ll take him at his word. Santorum has been a faithful member of the religious right but has been all over the map on fiscal issues like any big government “conservative”. Newt is a supply-sider. I’m a supply-sider. Newt can explain and defend conservatism. I can explain and defend conservatism. Newt wants fundamental changes in the way Washington is tun. I want fundamental changes in how Washington is run.

    I’m with Newt.

    Newt has had three marriages and was late in life before he accepted a religious faith. I don’t think that’s admirable but I don’t think its going to affect how he’s going to run the country.

    Newt ticked off Republican insiders at the times when he chose to promote conservatism rather than to stroke egos, respect seniority, or accommodate moderate stances. As president, that might affect how he can run the country but frankly if republican insiders choose to not promote conservative policies because of personal issues, that’s their fault not the president’s.

    Newt resigned the speakership over an ethics charge but a later IRS investigation completely cleared him of any wrongdoing. That’s not going to affect how he’s going to run the country.

    The problems I have with Romney and Santorum are over how their problems affect what they would do to promote or hinder conservatism. The problems I see or foresee with Newt…just don’t.

    Go to the candidates’ websites. Look at what they say they are going to do to see if you think that is the best direction for America. Compare their plan to what they’ve done in the past to make sure their plan is consistent with how they behaved in the past so you know if you can trust him or not. Then vote for the person whose plan you like the best.

    It should be that simple. Regardless of the candidate chosen, money will be raised, ads will be run, and polls will change before November. It always does. In every election.

  • krish

    If Romney loses MI, you will start RINO establishment distance itself from him! His biggest support is the establishment & he cannot afford lose that support. He will spend many millions to smear Santorum anyway possible! We will see the kind of attacks that only Dems use in elections!

    Newt should team up with Rick in the next debate & go after Mittens record & highlight how he has not really changed about his liberal views – as evidenced by minimum wage, abortion issue – same as Obama etc.! For the sake of party & country, it is important that Rick & Newt do Not kill each other & let Mittens off the hook.

    Hope & pray that Mittens loses MI! We will see the unraveling of Romney camp & Establishment! I would love to see the RINO Establishment eat some excrement!

    Even if Mittens wins, the amount of money he is spending & the negatives will go up so high – he is finished! Obama in a landslide in 2012!

    • deVere

      http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sarah-palin-to-eric-bolling-im-game-to-run-for-office-all-bets-are-off-in-a-brokered-convention/

  • Pingback: Shandra Sago

  • Pingback: Carina Allmond