« BACK | PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Super Tuesday CoverItLive/Open Thread

By: Leon H. Wolf (Diary) | March 6th, 2012 at 07:01 PM |

RESIZE: AAA

WIll Mitt Romney score a knockout punch tonight or does Santorum have another surprise in the bag? Click to join in, or chime in to the comments section!

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES | LOGIN TO COMMENT | REGISTER TODAY

mikelindell2

TN, OH, OK get out there quickly & vote Newt!

mikelindell2

in GA. I’m sure this will be almost entirely ignored and only talked about as “expected,” even though Romney’s win in MI was a huge “comeback” and gave him huge “momentum.”

WillWong

Is that right? I understand that they can only call it after the polls closed so as not to affect those who have yet to vote.

mikelindell2

Remember just a couple of weeks ago Santorum was actually ahead in GA? Now, Newt has come back to win it big. Imagine the narrative they’d create if Romney had come back by such a big margin? Mitt came back to win MI by 3 points and they talked about him as a miraculous underdog fighting against all odds to win.

WillWong

Newt needs to get above 50% to get all 76 delegates.

WillWong

NT

mikelindell2

He essentially just said that people should not give any more money to Newt while the rest of the panel mocked Newt, even calling him “Uncle Rico.” The depths that they are willing to take their unscrupulous tactics never ceases to amaze me.
lastgopinillinois

I am going to go to Newt.org and make another campaign donation.
To H#%& with Juan.
Melody Warbington (rwm52)

. .
.
clowngirl

N/t

http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

I worked the polls today in Ohio and it was a very strange day. A win for anyone in Ohio tonight may be an indication of…I don’t know what. Democrats were coming in and saying (in a snarky tone), “For TODAY, I’m a Republican!” They were working on their own version of Operation Chaos.

Others – Democrats- were coming in and saying they were coming in and voting Republican to vote AGAINST Romney because that had been inundated with non-stop negative robocalls from him over the past week and they were so angry they were voting against him.

Of course, as an election official I am prohibited from participating in (or allowing) political discussion at the polls, but these are snippets of conversations I observed over my 13-hour shift today. Bizarre.

Scope

a bunch of PO’d voters. I cannot even imagine anyone spending $12 million on a primary election just because you are so desperate to win. That’s almost obscene.

http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

Romney spent about $30 per vote in Ohio. Obama got about 64 million votes in the last election. If he has to keep the same pace…

jermane2020

I just saw Newt’s speech tonight, with his emphasis on his promise of $2.50/gallon gas, to an audience holding up signs with images of gas pumps and $2.50 showing as the price.

His emphasis on his promise of $2.50/gallon gas may be the most cynical insult to the intelligence of voters that I’ve ever seen. It is total B.S. and totally dependent on the ignorance of voters.

A president simply cannot achieve a large reduction in gasoline prices via expansion of oil drilling (plus Keystone), which is Gingrich’s claim and promise. It simply would not increase global supply of oil enough to make much of a difference, not in the time frame Gingrich promises, nor even for decades, which is as far as this stuff has been analyzed.

I’m pro-drilling, because it’s good for jobs and more, but I can’t stand to see a guy (of any political stripe) trying so hard to exploit ignorance of the people on an issue. Many voters have higher priorities for their time (work, family, home, etc.) than to take time to research and fact-check politician’s claims and the plausibility of their promises, and the media do a horrible job — simply offering up the talking points from politician and partisan pundits on both sides rather than ensuring readers/viewers/listeners can hear what non-partisan experts/analysts on the matter are saying, so I’m not putting down people too much for being ignorant on some issue and for being fooled by a crafty politician.

What Newt is doing is nothing short of shameful.

mikelindell2

Oil futures rely heavily on what people see is being done to expand supply. President can have huge impact on oil price even though the left wants you to think differently. Also, stronger dollar reduces oil prices which is another Newt proposal.

http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2012/02/23/six_ways_obama_can_lower_gas_prices_.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/how_to_lower_oil_prices_now_an.html

Do you watch O’Reilly frequently?

jermane2020

I’ve looked into it, and based my conclusion on the clear, consistent view expressed by non-partisan analysts. Apparently you prefer to rely on partisans and non-experts, and unfortunately many people “learn” and “fact check” that absurd way these days, which is one of the big problems in America.

Again, to be clear, a president cannot achieve a large reduction in the price of gasoline via expansion of drilling (plus Keystone), which would relate to OCS, ANWR and federal lands generally (I assume), as opposed to state jurisdictions. We simply couldn’t increase global supply enough to make a substantial difference is gas prices, even if other suppliers (e.g., the Saudis) didn’t reduce output in response, which they might.

If you think otherwise, I suggest you look outside of partisan sources. Don’t you think it makes more sense, if your goal is to find out the truth rather than be told what you want to hear, that you seek out the views (on this question) of non-partisan analysts rather than depending on partisans or non-experts?

Again, I’m in favor of presidential policies that expand drilling, and I’m in favor of Keystone. Such policies can add jobs and help our economy. But I’m not going to be fooled by some full-of-baloney politician who tells me such policies will have the effect of substantial reduction in gas prices. It’s B.S. Period.

I see a few other commenters have drunk the same Kool-Aid. I suggest you all do some real research. Just take 1 hour at least and Google around regarding the impact of expanded OCS drilling. Look for non-partisan expert analysis, if you can stomach the idea of possibly being told something you don’t want to hear. If you do you’ll find that such experts all say that expanded drilling in the OCS (and ANWR) won’t have a significant impact on gas prices even by 2030, which is as far out as I’ve seen analyses.

Remember, we aren’t talking about directional impact here, we’re talking about magnitude. Sure, expanded supply means lower prices (other things equal), but the point is that the expansion of supply we are talking about is simply not enough to achieve a large impact on gas prices, not now, now 4 or 8 or even 20 years from now. That’s what the non-partisan experts all say, whether one wishes to face it or not.

demsaresatanic

how about, I suggest you post some links to support your conclusions; you simply pile one conclusion on top of another and ask us to believe you.

jermane2020

ok, per your request. Most bolding is mine.

Here?s an excerpt from overview, and I recommend reading the whole article:
“This drill drill drill thing is tired,” said Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at the Oil Price Information Service, which calculates gas prices for the motorist organization AAA. “It’s a simplistic way of looking for a solution that doesn’t exist.”

… According to a 2009 study from the government’s Energy Information Administration, opening up waters that are currently closed to drilling off the East Coast, West Coast and the west coast of Florida would yield an extra 500,000 barrels a day by 2030.

The world currently consumes 89 million barrels a day, and by then would likely be using over 100 million barrels.

After OPEC got done adjusting its production to reflect the increased American output, gas prices might drop a whopping 3 cents a gallon, the study said.

“More production from anywhere would tend to lower prices,” said Adam Sieminski, chief energy economist at Deutsche Bank. “But the amount that we’re talking about domestically, it wouldn’t move gas prices from $4 a gallon to $3.”
http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/25/news/economy/oil_drilling_gas_prices/index.htm

And this is a quote from the referenced EIA analysis, with bolding mine:
With limited access to the lower 48 OCS, U.S. dependence on imports increases, and there is a small increase in world oil prices. Oil import dependence in 2030 is 43.4 percent in the OCS limited case, as compared with 40.9 percent in the reference case, and the total annual cost of imported liquid fuels in 2030 is $403.4 billion, 7.1 percent higher than the projection of $376.6 billion in the reference case. The average price of imported low-sulfur crude oil in 2030 (in 2007 dollars) is $1.34 per barrel higher, and the average U.S. price of motor gasoline price is 3 cents per gallon higher, than in the reference case.
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/aeo_2009analysispapers/aongr.html

A bit more, as reported in The Hill:
What impact will additional drilling have on gas prices?

Even a dramatic expansion of domestic oil-and-gas drilling will have little effect on oil-and-gas prices, as they are largely set on world markets.
Here?s EIA Administrator Richard Newell, in written testimony delivered to the House Natural Resources Committee March 17:
?Long term, we do not project additional volumes of oil that could flow from greater access to oil resources on Federal lands to have a large impact on prices given the globally integrated nature of the world oil market and the more significant long-term compared to short-term responsiveness of oil demand and supply to price movements.?
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/157441-fact-checking-the-washington-rhetoric-on-drilling

And with regard to ANWR, another EIA analysis says:
With respect to the world oil price impact, projected ANWR oil production constitutes between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030, based on the low and high resource cases, respectively.17 Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices.
http://205.254.135.7/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/results.html
demsaresatanic

discussed the things Newt is talking about but I appreciate your backing up your conclusions. Btw, here is what Newt is talking about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOpcPfAarjY
jermane2020

…that a president could, in effect, achieve via policies on drilling.

I addressed drilling because in the speech Gingrich gave tonight, which as I stated, I was responding to, Gingrich emphasized drilling.

See this video of Gingrich’s speech tonight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=RzuZdedYjyM
At 14:42, Gingrich says:
The president says “The Republicans have three strategies. Strategy #1 is drilling. Strategy #2 is drilling. Strategy #3 is drilling.” And I want to say to him “Mr. President, this is one of the rare occasions when I can say YOU ARE RIGHT!”

Also, a bit later, he also pretends to be ignorant of the fact that oil prices are, for the most part, set in a global market, and that a major disruption of supply from the Persian Gulf would impact oil prices we pay even if we had achieved so-called “energy independence”. So that’s another bit of B.S. he’s selling.

The video you provided in your comment above is of a 2008 speech. Just want to make sure you’re aware of that.
jermane2020

That’s where the Gingrich quote ends.
mikelindell2

Oil futures would start dropping the moment Newt was announced winner on election night. Also, his proposals regarding returning to a strong dollar would also greatly reduce oil prices.
I noticed you did not refute anything that was in the links I posted, instead opting to just dismiss them because they were from “conservative” sources. I suggest you do some more “research” on oil futures and what makes them fluctuate.
jermane2020

Some people just want to believe what they want to believe.

First, based on my scanning of those articles you linked to, your partisan sources don’t even contradict what I said. I don’t see them saying that expanded domestic drilling per presidential policies could have a large impact on gas prices (or oil prices, which of course are related, although refining capacity is also a factor), let alone as much as Gingrich is talking about.

Second, I’m not an expert analyst on this issue, so I look to non-partisan expert analysts as my top source in terms of credibility. If I do see a partisan source (particularly a non-expert, but even a partisan source with some expertise) expressing some contrary view, I may not have the expertise to refute each point they make myself, but I can turn to the overall analyses of non-partisan experts who apply information and analytical methods that relate to their expertise and report different conclusions.

But it seems you’re the kind of guy who just wants to believe what you want to believe, and you look to sources who will tell you what you want to hear. Whatever gets ya’ by, I guess. But I wish more people were more interested in really trying to find out what is most likely true.

Scope

high 5′s from the Republicans speaking on CNN. One said that the speech he had just given was exactly what you don’t do. Apparently made made his speech all about him, and he was the Speaker, and he did this and he did that. He didn’t make it about the people/voters, he made it about himself. The other R guy suggested that because he now has one win out of all the state’s that have voted so far, there was no cause to mock those that had written his campaign off, and when you are 1 for 10 you might just want to rethink the race.

I’m looking at the Ohio numbers as they are right now, and if Gingrich wasn’t in the race, Santorum would possibly be leading Romney big time, rather than just the 4 points he is ahead by now.

clowngirl

Romney did better in a 2 way race against Santorum than in the regular poll.

Apparently, it’s no longer safe to assume a majority of Newt supporters would migrate to Santorum.

http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

As a Newt supporter, I never had Santorum above Romney.

texastaxpayer

It isn’t even close… Phoebe for president 2012 “Cause Obama sucks and Mitts a twit”
http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

-no-text

acat

The thing about oil prices is it takes a while to get from drilling to production, so .. if we increase drilling, prices will come down because future supply will go up.

Opening the Bakken formation, expanding natural gas fracking, and renewing offshore exploration will drop the price. It’s just how it goes.

Further, the EPA and their deranged patchwork of of “specialized” fuel blends is more of a problem than most Americans know – increasing refining efficiency by reducing the number of specialized blends will also reduce prices.

Mew

aesthete

but not by a third, and not in the timeframe envisioned by Gingrich.

Keep in mind that Rick Perry, who has proximity to and experience with energy markets, never made such an outrageous claim.

JSobieski

I don’t think Newt’s goal is outrageous.

Frankly, just going to a single blend would do a lot more for gas prices than people suspect.

Of course, whether Newt could actually pull any of that off is an open question.

aesthete

I’ve heard prices going down observably — I’ve not heard gas prices going down by more than one third. Certainly, none of the evidence that I’ve seen indicates that such a goal is feasible. I find it hard to believe that a history professor from Georgia would have the inside track on this as opposed to, say, the governor of an oil-producing state (Palin, Perry, Hoeven), those in the oil industry, or any of a number of professional economists.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I’ve seen extraordinary rhetoric about American greatness from Newt, but not the sort of proof to justify campaign rhetoric that is bound to disappoint his followers.
lapert

If he were to open the spigot on the reserves could he hit it (at least temporarily) in short order? It isn’t something I would want to see but in 2008 one of Gingrich’s big ideas to reduce gas prices was to dump 1/3 of the reserves (of course that was before the economy took care of it).
JSobieski

To reduce gas prices that substantially you have to send clear and comprehensive signals to the market that there has been a paradigm shift.
JSobieski

I share your skepticism of the representation made in the campaign, but there is evidence (according to Newt’s discussions with industry insiders) that at a price of $2.50/gallon, there is still every incentive to drill/explore like crazy.

A systematic signal that the federal government will go from an obstacle to a facilitator could unleash capitalism in a way that we forget exists.

Big movements in markets are always underestimated.
aesthete

If the equilibrium price of any good, whether pencils or oil, drops dramatically, there wouldn’t there be *less* incentive to produce that good? Maybe there are government costs such that removing them will allow more profits temporarily, motivating an increase in that industry until prices go down to the new equilibrium of $2.50, but even that seems like a process that would take more than 8 years. Even if the economics shook out, the extent to which Newt’s statement is true is dependent on *how* much prices would go down. If I ran for President on the platform that my Super-Duper Deregulation will let you have your very own Rolls Royce for under $10,000 fresh off the industry line, and offered no evidence for my claim? It’s rank pandering. My plan might be good on its merits, but evidence needs to justify my statements for them to be accurate. If I can’t reveal the evidence for my statements to the public, then I probably shouldn’t be making those statements in a public forum.

Hence my second paragraph vis a vis extraordinary evidence. If it’s out there, I haven’t seen it. Circumstantial evidence from a brief meeting between Gingrich and industry execs (which I personally have not seen) is much less persuasive to me than the state of the market and explanations for why the market is the way it is from those closest to it, and by those who have the tools to analyze the market.

If we’re basing the plausibility of a claim on something that Newt knows and we don’t, and that he’s not telling us? Then we might as well just do that for every politician who comes around. Romney’s going to balance the budget without touching SS and Medicare? Maybe there’s tons of secret government spending on black ops or something that he’s going to cut. Obama is going to make us a green energy nation? Hey, maybe he knows more about the green industry than we do. IDK… I just don’t buy the argument that Newt is a better prognosticator of these trends and a better analyst of the tech than established players, or that he’s been so accurate in the past as to justify placing confidence in him in that respect.
JSobieski

Without government in the way. $2.50 is that point
aesthete

demsaresatanic

posts wild conclusions without any supporting facts is hardly Newt’s loss.

EyeofMitt

I will still support him for VP of course but after long consideration, I am abandoning my support of Newt and taking up the cause for Mitt. I can so totally see Mrs. Romney as First Lady. Can’t you guys see it now: Romney as CEO of USA with Newt as VP with plenty of time to keep the solutions coming. I know I will get a lot of flak from many of you here, but I couldn’t care less. So there. Meh!

demsaresatanic

that will be the day.
Melody Warbington (rwm52)

You might be a candi-bot if your candidate’s name is in handle.

You might enjoy this diary: candibots.

Melody Warbington (rwm52)

.
.
.
EyeofMitt

And as far as candibots and the link you sent — you seem to forget about one of the prerequisites you meet:
“If you use biblical references to describe the manifest destiny of your candidate, you might be a candi-bot.”
Bwhaaa Bwhaaa!
Melody Warbington (rwm52)

Lighten up. I meant no offense.

My biblical reference is not a reference to any candidate, and in fact, is a protest against all those whose support was accused of being messianic.

And I’m a “Mrs” thank you very much. None of that feminist “Ms” or “Mz” for me.
EyeofMitt

N/T

JSobieski

a bad idea—a way to maximize negatives and minimize positives

aesthete

for that reason.

Heck, none of them should be POTUS, either.

clowngirl

It’s still a depressing thought.

It is an additional reason for Newt to stay in the race though. Can’t imagine Romney choosing him willingly.

Can’t relate on the jumping ship for Romney bit.

http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

Look at what Romney’s missing to see who would fit as his running mate.

1. Solid social conservative cred.
2. Foreign Policy/Military experience.

That narrows down the choices quite a bit.

mikelindell2

You have “Mitt” in your user name and I’m to believe that you were ever on the fence about who to support? HA nice try

dukeroyal

I will not vote for Romney because he is just like Obama, they are both liberals. If Romney is the nominee I vote third party.

WillWong

So your contention that a president’s energy policies, or in Obama’s case a total lack of a coherent energy policy geared towards $10 a gallon gas clearly does not hold water!

carolina

Romney 59% Paul 41% Paul even got 3 delegates.

Scope

I heard Gov. McDonnell complained today about the low turnout, and had the nerve to say that he wished there were more candidates on the ballot. LOL The VA GOP is going to have a very hard time getting much data for the November election as so many just staid home. I don’t know if 5.5% is a record for low turnout, but it’s got to be close.

carolina

I agree scope. They shot themselves in the foot.

minister_of_war

Republican Candidates have had to play by these same rules for years & still were able to make the ballot. Just because certain campaigns were unorganized, it’s somehow the fault of the VA GOP? Just think, even Ron freakin Paul made the Virginia ballot!

flapjackmaka

Mitt’s campaign influenced them to have a threshold above 15,000 signatures.

Romney will not win in november.
minister_of_war

…It’s still a lot of signatures, but once again even Ron freakin Paul got the required number of signatures.

The 15000 signature number that you’re talking about was what the State Party suggested candidates collected in order to ensure that they don’t have their ballots disqualified. Anyone who’s ever worked on campaigns know that there are always issues with signatures on ballots – especially when Democrats start looking at the ballots & the signatures & start disqualifying signatures for ridiculous & petty reasons.

http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

winning by 16,000 votes right now. Plus Santorum is competing in other states. Newt only got one state and no other close ones yet.

Scope

somewhat, but Newt will have to split the GA delegates with Santorum and Romney. He may get a few delegates in some of the other states, but so far it appears that he hasn’t crossed the % threshold in many of them to get any delegates. Just as Romney is having a hard time in the south, Gingrich is having a hard time in the northeast states. I think he finished last in Vermont and Mass.

clowngirl

It really shouldn’t matter how Newt does there?

In GA apparently there’s a 20% threshold to get any delegates at all. Santorum is below that at the moment.

What are the thresholds Newt is below?

Scope

also. He’s pretty far ahead there, with I think Paul in second.
Spartan4Life

No other way to analyze this debacle.

Which one of these guys is the least biggest loser?

Romney can’t win the primary. Santorum and Gingrich(Is his losing speech still going on?) have no chance to beat Obama.

Ugh.

dukeroyal

although it is small, to beat Obama. Romney and Santorum will lose to Obama as bad as Mondale lost to Reagan in 1984.

westcoastpatriette

good.

gracie

Lord, he was a sight for sore eyes.

What say you, wcp?

westcoastpatriette

So confident, rested….and calmly pissed. He was so “on script”, and disciplined making sure to emphasize why Newt is the one to vote for. What a horrible loss! Can’t you just see him in the White House with his sledge hammer?

And yeah, guess lots of people felt like Erick and stubbornly voted for Perry and Huntsman. This is the weirdest primary ever. At this point I am mainly enjoying watching Romney have to fight tooth and nail and spend a ton of money to barely stay in the game. Anything could happen still, so grab some more popcorn!

gracie

Perry got 6900!
Huntsman got 5900!
7,000 is the vote margin between Mitt and Santorum!
Hummm?

gracie

nt

furiouschads

Wooden
Inevitable
Electable (I don?t like him but normal people will vote for him.)
Privileged
Well funded
Moderate (in his party?s view)
From Mass.
Francophone
French-lover
Flipflopper
Weird when agitated
Victory is preordained!

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

You just need to figure out the word you want to spell out from the first letters, going down.

lastgopinillinois

the MSM has just announced that Romney won 3 States, Sanorum won 3 states, Newt only won his home State of Georgia.

proudgop

OH 2 Congresswoman Jeane Scmidt has lost re-election to Wenstrup in GOP primary
OH 9 Kaptur has defeated Kuchnich
New OH 12 Joyce Betty has defeated Mary Kilroy in Dem Prmary

Ender

nt

jermane2020

Pro: No more Congressman Kucinich!

Cons:
- His primary opponent will probably be just as bad.
- We might see even more of Kucinich if he gets some media job(s).
- Will I ever get to see his hot wife on T.V. again? (Maybe in 2016 if he runs for prez again)

minister_of_war

nt
jon11

just please please please dont give me Santorum.

GregInFla

That should be the goal.
minister_of_war

Did you see Newt’s ridiculous speech tonight?

Romney #1 by far.

Santorum #2.

Paul # 3.

and….

and….

and the erratic narcissist adulterer Newt Gingrich # 8.

GregInFla

I want to see if CNN would show the same amount of excitement calling states for Romney in November as they seem to be doing tonight. Or would they have worried tone in their voices if Penn and Ohio and North Carolina go GOP in November on election night?

minister_of_war

One thing for sure is that those swing states are much more likely to be in the R column with either Romney or Santorum than Ron Paul or Newt “cheerful” Gingrich.

mikelindell2

No one will want to vote for Romney the pathological liar. Many journalists are now discussing how much info that Obama has on Romney that they will be able to destroy him with.
No one wants to vote for the other guy who will seize your condoms.

Newt-Best Record, Best Plan, Most Electable, Most Conservative

Ender

at least that is not as ugly looking as 59%

minister_of_war

A lot of people do like Ron Paul no matter what people say about him. Ron Paul came in 2nd place tonight in North Dakota too.

septembergurl

In the 9th district in Ohio, there are results in both parties.

On the Republican side, Samuel Wurtenbacher (AKA Joe the Plumber) appears to have won the Republican nomination.

On the Democrap side, redistricting set up a cage match between Dem veteran hacks Dennis Kucinich and Marcy Kaptur . Tonite, Kaptur is winning handily. Sayonara Dennis and good riddance to one of the most annoying leftwing hacks of all time.

Lets hope JTP pulls off this win in November.
Melody Warbington (rwm52)

for somebody who’s technologically savvy. Looking at the Ohio map, I wondered how the voting patterns for Romney vs. Not Romney compare to Democrat vs. GOP in the last few elections. Would the areas Romney has won track blue while Not Romney is red? Can anybody do an overlay of the maps?

http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

Romney won in the more urban areas. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Dayton, Akron, Canton, Youngstown. They’re Dem-heavy and labor-dominated.

Ender

He won GA with less than 50%, and did not come in 2nd anywhere.If he wants to compare home state wins, he should compare that to Romney’s 72% in MA and 75% in Idaho

demsaresatanic

on Super Tues and you brag about Mass and Idaho.

Ender

He wins 5 states (including Ohio) with AK outstanding, and that is crashing and burning? Your candidate won then? heh

demsaresatanic

Virginia, running against Paul only, spectacular victory. Vermont, lol, google Bernie Sanders. Ohio tie. Very impressive for Mr. Inevitable.

EyeofMitt

By viewing your words it is clear that you were raised in a saloon and not a salon.
demsaresatanic

you nailed it.
minister_of_war

With only 34 votes between them, you probably still consider Santorum’s win in Iowa after the recount to be a WIN. But a 12,000 vote victory IS NOT a tie. Romney won Ohio, but it was close.

minister_of_war

And Romney won everywhere that he was supposed to & the one state that he pretty much had to …. Ohio! I knew that I always liked the State of Ohio, even though I’ve never been there.

texastaxpayer

Santorums cleaning his clock for a guy with little money and no organization.

Romney won’t have the money and organizational advantages in November. How does he win then? How does he win with poor voter turnout and without the liberals breaking his way? How does he fair against a determined enemy with unlimited resources, a complacent media and a dedicated army of union thugs and activists?

Simple answer he doesn’t.
EyeofMitt

Texas will again lift it?s head high to vote in practically June.
Nyuk Nyuk
texastaxpayer

Nyuk…. Nyuk…..
EyeofMitt

if stubborn mules like you decide to stay home or do ridiculous protest votes. And don?t EVEN start with that Rick Perry crap. That pipedream is beyond belief!
aesthete

You can’t say the Romney folk aren’t gracious in victory.
snowshooze

The rest have no substance whatever.
If you don’t like Romney now… just chack back in 5 minutes or so…
he wil change.
texastaxpayer

As far as being stuborn, my vote is my own and I dont “owe it” to anyone. I will vote my conscience as always. Afraid that will hurt the GOP? Don’t nominate a big government liberal I cant support. Otherwise you are just giving this election to Obama.

texastaxpayer

Of course wasn’t it you pointing out just how far to the left and liberal Massachusetts is? Wasn’t it you claiming Romney just couldn’t be conservative because the liberals in Massachusetts wouldn’t stand for it?

Now your bragging about how large a victory Romney got in this liberal cesspit? Interesting.
mikelindell2

Newt did not compete in MA, Romney did compete in GA. Sorry but if your candidate wins MA that may not be a good thing in the R party..

usedtobelib

I’m happy, but it looks like his opponent is every bit the progressive kook he is.

http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

So they are down one liberal socialist.

Melody Warbington (rwm52)

For Newt Gingrich because he’s spot on with his energy policy.

Common_Cents

Palin had a chance to be relevant by fully endorsing Gingrich around SC and giving momentum into FL.

She obviously has been holding back for Fox news reasons.

WillWong

Which she had to pay out of her own pocket! Those details came out from the thousands of emails which were released. The Palins were discussing divorce at that time too!

I think she needs the Foxnews job and cannot burn her bridges with a full Newt Endorsement!

I think Santorum is finally reaping the fruits of the endorsement from the 150 evangelical leaders which is too bad for I honestly believe Santorum does not have the tools to turn the country around. This is not to detract from his spectacular performance today!

clowngirl

I don’t really get what Sarah Palin is doing. I’m sure she has her reasons — but she isn’t doing the full good that she could for Newt and it’s a bit disappointing because that good could be substantial.

usedtobelib

speak long enough, and he’ll tell you he can part the Red Sea. It’s Newt, people.

mikelindell2

The one who brought Republicans back into power after a half century. The only one who balanced the federal budget. 4 times The only one who reformed entitlement programs. The one who passed huge tax cuts that brought unemployment down to 4.2%. The one with the best plans now and the best ability to articulate them.

minister_of_war

I can’t remember her name.
minister_of_war

Yes, it’s close, but it looks like Mitt will be winning the Buckeye State.
minister_of_war

Go Mitt!
minister_of_war

nt.

Ender

and averted a disaster.

trickamsterdam

Really? You mean if Romney lost OH it would have been a disaster?

Because there’s a bunch of Newt supporters on this site that think Newt is in a stronger position tonight now that Romney has won.

I know it sounds ridiculous that a bunch of people could be dumb enough to believe that but I can assure you they do.

As a Romney supporter (and me as the ultimate “not-Romney” supporter) would you say they [the Newt people who think Newt is stronger after tonight] are brain damaged?

I don’t know if you’re a doctor well probably you aren’t so maybe you can’t diagnose that…perhaps they got a contact-high from Calista’s hair-care products? That wouldn’t happen w/ Mitt because he just uses a porkchop on his hair so it’s the natural grease. And we all know pork grease doesn’t cause weird visions.

Except in certain brothels in San Salvador. The pork grease has been known to be used as a narcotic there. But only when they run out of cow grease.

So you Romney people tricked these Newt people (I don’t approve of the term “Newt-Tards”) into voting for this guy in OH even though you know just like me this effectively ends the campaign.

And what…you’re proud you tricked the mentally challenged and ill [Newt supporters who think he's stronger after tonight]? Typical Romney people. Always taking advantaged of the weak.

Well in November Obama people won’t be so stupid. They’re used to being winners. As opposed to “Newt People” who have learned to love losing. And will learn to love it even more in the coming weeks I can assure them.

If fact I should probably change weeks to months because anyone stupid enough to think Newt would be helped by Romney winning tonight will surely in the end be dumb enough to jump on the Romney Train right before it goes off the cliff in November.

LOL

Ender

supporters are off, but I’d lay off the insults. Sometimes you become so blinded supporting your candidate, you miss the obvious. You keep on looking for the possible “theoretical” wins where the odds are so clearly and practically against you.

No one tricked anyone, but there are some people in denial.

aesthete

The irony is strong with you, young Padawan.
texastaxpayer
trickamsterdam

No I don’t think so.

This is my stop I’ve gotta get off, Ender. Appropriate it’s on a thread that’ll probably be dead in an hour.

Now that the Republican nomination process is effectively over my purpose in being here is over. It was to get a Republican who could beat Obama and then after that it was to stop Romney.

Now neither is possible.

People can say what they want about me but I always gave good advice including tonight (it wasn’t taken).

Had Santorum won tonight Newt would still be very much in this thing…because people know he can beat Santorum and know he can’t beat Romney.

I’ll send Gary Johnson a few hundred at some point and vote for him on election day. Until then I’m out.

Maybe around Thanksgiving I’ll pop my head back in and see if we’re all still alive (me included).

So long Ender. Even though you support the wrong candidate in the end you were smarter than your opponents.

I like that.

Last words last words, out.

‘trick

EyeofMitt

are you supporting. Your writing style is so long and convoluted — I can never tell. And please don’t say SMOD.

trickamsterdam

OK saw this when I posted.

This will be my last post then. See if this is short enough for you and answers your questions:

screw mitt romney

+

gary johnson (now)

LOL
texastaxpayer
EyeofMitt

A helluva lot less reading for all of us!

minister_of_war

GO MITT!

And not a bad job for Santorum. It was close.

minister_of_war

out of the states that have voted so far according to RealClearPolitics. Not too shabby for a guy who so many on here say that nobody likes.

Common_Cents

on CNN.

Gingrich has to bounce back next week and win MS and AL to beat back Santorum in the south.

TX would have been 1st week in april and could have re-launched Gingrich but now at the end of may, probably too late.

Every single change/movement in the primaries have benefited Romney, how lucky he is.

clowngirl

It’s amazing how the primary schedule seems to be almost tailor made for Romney:

A. his 2 home states and another state where he has a vacation home which borders the state where he was Governor all voting by Super Tuesday.

B. 3 states with especially high Mormon populations (AZ, ID, NV) also voting early (Nevada, if I remember correctly, worked with the Romney campaign to move up his primary)

C. An additional state (VT) that borders the state where he governed voting on Super Tuesday.

and D. — as you mentioned Texas moving back it’s primary.

I’m not suggesting all of this was done for Romney’s benefit – most of it probably is just lucky – but it does point out what an imperfect microcosm the primary season is. If Georgia voted right after Florida we’d probably have a very different race right now.

Romney isn’t going to be able to campaign in all the redstates/mormon states first and build momentum so as to marginalize Obama and become the inevitable President.

Nor (obviously) will he be able to outspend him by absurd amounts and have an eagerly cooperative press that lies and/or misleads for him and lets his campaign get away with distortions.

Personally I see only 2 options:

1. continue to support Newt, make phone calls, do what I can to help and hope for something close to a miracle

or

2. pay no attention to the race.

think I’ll go with 1. But man! what a depressing night.

Imagine things will look a little better in the morning. Newt actually did reasonably under the circumstances but I got my hopes up that he might win Tennessee or Oklahoma. Especially after that one poll showing a statistical tie for TN.

May take a break from RedState for awhile though.

See y’all in awhile! maybe.

Common_Cents

That really hurt. Gave Romney much momentum rather than split w/ gingrich coming off a SC win.

Next phone town hall with Gingrich I’m gonna ask him to start supporting the precinct project to take the party over with conservatives from the bottom up and fight back against DC establishment.

mikelindell2

.

Martin Knight

n/t

clowngirl

It’s easy to see how Newt dropping out would benefit Rick Santorum (and to imagine why his campaign would call for that while dripping with hypocrisy) – but exceedingly difficult to come up with ANY plausible way Rick wins outright before the convention.

If, however, we are looking at forcing a brokered convention – then it’s easy to see the advantage of multiple candidates taking delegates from Romney in the remaining proportional states.

There was an article today — Romney has the advantage, but has a very difficult path to the required delegates if everyone stays in.

If other candidates start dropping out, it gets much easier.

demsaresatanic

“a pretty good night.” Romney the inevitable is not so inevitable, even the media hacks aren’t saying that much anymore from what I have seen tonight. Newt has been smashed down hard twice and is fighting back well. This race is far from over.
texastaxpayer

Well all may not be lost. Should the worst happen I have heard rumors that there is another path….

Apparently there is a SUCCESSFUL TWO TERM governor with an HONORABLE and successful business background in the race. His budgets where balanced, spending slashed and he left office with a great approval rating and a surplus on the books….. Now I know we are all hoping Newt or Rick pull this out but if not…… It doesn’t mean we have to elect Obama lite…
Pingback: Hisako Willes

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Super Tuesday CoverItLive/Open Thread

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL