« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The final embarrassment. April 24.

By: mbecker908 (Diary)  |  April 5th, 2012 at 12:58 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Rick Santorum looks like he’s toast. A month ago he was even in Wisconsin and up by double digits in Pennsylvania.

Last night he got blown out in Wisconsin based on the Republicans who voted – he did manage to get close when you include the crossover Democrats who voted for him. A week ago he was down to two ahead in Pennsylvania.  And that’s the good news for the Sweater Boy.

According to Public Policy Polling (PPP) things aren’t just “worse”, they’re looking like a disaster.

Mitt Romney’s taken the lead in PPP’s newest poll of Rick Santorum’s home state of Pennsylvania. Romney has 42% to 37% for Santorum with Ron Paul at 9% and Newt Gingrich at 6%. The numbers represent a dramatic turnaround from when PPP polled the state a month ago. Romney’s gained 17 points, going from 25% to 42%. Meanwhile Santorum’s dropped 6 points from 43% to 37%, for an overall swing of 23 points in the last four weeks.

Twenty three points in four weeks.  And Romney hasn’t even turned the advertising guns on Santorum yet.  It’s likely to get worse for Mr. Santorum unless he can mobilize the Democrats in Pennsylvania as he was able to in Wisconsin.  And, for the record, I have no idea if Democrats can cross over in Pennsylvania, the idea is just a lifeline for Santorum.  ***UPDATE:  a friend just emailed me and PA is a closed primary.  Really not good for Rick.***

I’m not in the least surprised by this.  Santorum is a well known entity in Pennsylvania and he’s not particularly well liked.  In 2006 when he got blown out after pandering to union voters by stopping national Right-to-Work legislation, the real killer was moving from Pennsylvania to the Washington suburbs and then taking money from his old Pennsylvania school district because his kids were being home-schooled.  That didn’t go down well and if you look around at comments in places other than Redstate you’ll find that the folks in Pennsylvania haven’t forgotten that little episode.

If you look at the internals, and they are available from a link at the summary linked to above, you’ll see what’s summarized below.

Romney’s made huge in roads with the groups that have tended to fuel Santorum’s success. What was a 37 point lead for Santorum with Evangelicals is now only 10 points at 44-34. What was a 32 point advantage for him with Tea Party voters is now only 6 at 41-35. And in the greatest sign that conservatives are starting to really around Romney a little bit, what was a 51 point deficit for him with ‘very conservative’ voters is now only 11 points at 44-33.

The sun is setting on Mr. Santorum.  If he lets his ego run things and gets blown out his political career is most likely over.  He’s been dogged throughout this campaign by his thrashing in the 2006 Senatorial race.  He’ll never live another beating down and rise to run again.  He likely won’t rise above dropping out now with the polls heading south, but a clean loss on his home turf would be a stake through the heart.

The primary is days from being, thankfully, over.  Time to turn the guns – and that would be a metaphor thank you – on Barack Obama and his wrecking crew.

Oh, and don’t bother whining about PPP being a Democratic Pollster.  As it happens, they are consistently very accurate and it’s the trend line that matters not their perceived leaning.

UPDATE:  Rasmussen has Santorum up 4.  I haven’t had time to look at anything but the email heading and won’t for several hours.  Frankly, it doesn’t change much.  Yes, there’s an outside possibility Rick can pull out a narrow win.  That’s no consolation for the reasons noted.  And also Yes!, the numbers are still headed in Romney’s way big time.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • zachv

    As much as I am rigidly not in favor of Santorum, (1) he’s not losing Pennsylvania and it’s silly to say that he will and (2) that’s too low of a blow, I think, for any Republican to lose his home state in a two man competitive environment.

    It’d not only be embarrassing on Santorum … for like ever … but it’d be an embarrassment for all of us who support the Republican Party.

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

      an embarrassment to the Republican party.

      As far as him pulling out a win, he could. But in politics, once momentum shifts it doesn’t typically make a 180. Gingrich got a couple of bounces, one before things really heated up and nobody was much paying attention and a second one when he won by a huge margin in his home state. Come hell or high water that won’t be happening in Pennsylvania. As I noted, IF – and that’s a huge if – Santorum pulls out a win, it will be a squeaker. That’s as bad as just losing because he’ll get compared to Romney who got something line 70% of the vote in MA and Newt who won GA going away.

      The other factors that will hurt him are that Romney can turn his advertising budget on Santorum and I doubt Rick has the cash to appropriately respond. Second, you can bet he will be questioned at every stop about losing his Mo and what’s he going to do. Even if he fields the questions well, they will create a perception in the mind of voters that he’s toast.

      • bk

        Sure he’ll have some hit men in PA, but he can start concentrating on November, as the fat lady is done warming up and is starting to belt out a tune.

        • Flagstaff

          Romney will ignore Santorum in his speeches. The PAC will hammer him as necessary.

          Assume that Romney really has no control over the PAC. I think he would still ignore Santrorum. Mitt’s star has been rising as he concentrates more on Obama, less on Santo. Rick’s star has been faltering as he keeps trying to drag Romney down.

          The conventional wisdom is that negative campaigning works. I think it only works up to a point. As Santo’s descriptions of Romney fail to match what people perceive on-screen, they fall flat.

          I don’t know what the PAC negative ads against Rick could be, but if they stick to reminding voters of simple facts that everybody already knows, they will still hurt Santo somewhat without creating a backlash against Romney. If they get nasty, they don’t help that much if at all.

          I don’t know if anybody else noticed, but Romney called Obama “out of touch” in his post-Wisconsin speech. I’m hopeful that Romney’s campaign will tap into some irony, and hit Obama on his hypocrisy.

          For example, O’Reilly and Morris think it was dumb of Romney to continue with the construction of a big house in California. “It gives Obama easy ammunition.” Only if Obama brings it up, Romney can point out that in building it he

          . employed hundreds of people for over a year during construction
          . spent his own money
          . will be paying lots of property tax to California
          . will employ a large staff to care for the property while he’s away
          . did I mention he spent his own money?
          . he didn’t acquire the property at a below-market price via a shady deal with a convicted felon

          I think that last point will keep it out of the campaign news.

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

            ..

          • acat

            Not incompetent, but in over his head…

            Not a bad guy, but not up to the job….

            We all know people like that, and better, it’s bloody hard to say – given Obama’s record of fail – that he’s *not* bitten off more than he can chew, eh?

            Further, although I doubt it’ll stop the hardest of the hardcore, this kind of “good guy, but lacking in experience” attack doesn’t lend itself to a reply of “Racist!”. …

            I wish we had a better candidate – I blame Iowa for throwing away the gift and electing the cardboard box – but in his own way, Romney’s going to be interesting to watch.

            Mew

          • aesthete

            Obama’s personal favorability ratings are still relatively high — it’s his policies that are extraordinarily unpopular.

            Attacking Obama personally is counterproductive — and in Romney’s case, allows for Obama to attack Romney personally as a 1%er.

          • demsaresatanic

            Romney will be personally attacked in any case.

          • aesthete

            we attack him on purely subjective points where he is strongest? I suspect you’re the guy who would have told a general in medieval times to charge his cavalry headlong into the pikes, instead of flanking — after all, knights aren’t pansies!

          • demsaresatanic

            will stay “relatively high” unless he is attacked.

          • aesthete

            time and again in Fox News, by several of our politicians, and by many of our pundits, on a personal level. About half of it is legitimate; the other half is conspiracist nonsense (like the birfers). Guess which half Obama is going to highlight, and guess how much the American public is going to care about any of this during a recession.

            Bush didn’t lose support because the American public suddenly agreed with Keith Olbermann that he was the worst person alive. He lost it because of the state that the Iraq War and the economy were perceived to be in, and because he lost the support of conservatives.

          • acat

            Start here

            Look, the short version is that people don’t like to admit that they made a mistake in voting for Obama.

            I can’t believe I’m writing this, but .. have you learned *nothing* about Romney’s campaign style? He’ll take the “he’s a nice guy, but…” message in speeches and on the stump. His *proxies* will make the hard anti-Obama personal hits.

            Of *course* it’s going to come back at Romney, but .. the argument that Romney’s a lousy campaigner does not line up with Romney being thisclose to winning the nomination.

            Win or lose, this is one for the history books.

            Mew

          • aesthete

            It really, really helps to have proxies who fire up the base (which requires OBAMA EATS BABIES messaging in some parts), while having a candidate stay above the fray. People don’t like to think that they’ve made mistakes; they’d rather think that Obama is either a) in over his head in a way they didn’t suspect, or b) that he’s been lying to them through his teeth.

            Option B is only available in the case of a politician that people really, really dislike — like LBJ or Nixon. That option is a terrible idea when it comes to someone who’s generally liked as a person. See, people like to think that their impressions of people are accurate, as well — and whatever confirms this impression is what they’re most likely to believe and act on (at least, when there is an extremely low or socialized observable cost to being wrong, as is the case in all electoral politics). It’s just the way that the game is played.

          • aesthete

            Most conservatives, however, should care less about Obama’s individual qualities, and more about the mechanisms which allowed him to become President and to enact the policies which he put into place. By and large, these mechanisms are the same ones that were in place during the Bush administration — and will be in place for Romney’s administration, as well.

            It’s important that we avoid traps, and making our long descent towards madness out to be the result of one idiosyncratic man is a very good way of falling into a trap during a Romney administration.

          • acat

            the “what not to do” here?

            As I recall it – and Real Life was much more invasive at the time – Dole was more aggressively anti-Clinton .. and it cost him badly because while people didn’t *trust* Bubba, they *liked* him.

            Had Dole taken a more measured “He’s in over his head” approach, coupled with some loudmouth proxy-hits (i.e. Drudge, Limbaugh, etc.) and some smart proxy-hits (i.e. Krauthammer, Will) it could have come out very differently.

            One thing about a vulture capitalist like Romney .. they usually try and study the market before entering…

            Mew

          • texastaxpayer

            I guess we will see how it turns out…

          • acat

            It’s insane to keep doing the same thing and expecting different results…right?

            Mew

          • aesthete

            As I recall, there was almost no discussion of issues during McCain’s campaign — mostly it was a contrast between McCain’s biography and experience, and some vague talk about Obama’s past.

            I think that hammering Obama hard on job policies, energy, government debt, and ObamaCare are the way to go, since people seem to like Obama on a personal level (and will probably not be fond of the wooden Romney on that level).

          • APA Guy

            acat is 100% correct here, folks. Dragging out Rev. Wright (Do you hear me, Hannity??? Rev. Wright as a top story for 5 months straight = us getting our butts kicked in Nov) or anything else irrelevant to the plight of working (and voting) Americans gets us nominal votes.

            Romney needs to point out daily how Obama’s anti-capitalist policies have raised THEIR gas prices…how his anti-business policies have cost THEM jobs…how his bloated spending has devalued THEIR dollar and pushed the cost of groceries sky-high.

            Romney needs to hammer Obama on this…EVERY FREAKIN DAY…until the sheep who are tempted to re-elect this clown get it through their thick skulls. THAT is how to defeat the politician while refraining from personal attacks.

          • Flagstaff

            but I think you’re right. That’s why it’ll take some time.

            There is no need for OBAMA EATS BABIES placards. He has done plenty for real that he should be vulnerable on. It’s up to the campaign to get it into everybody’s heads.

            And as I said nearby, we don’t call him names, we just show how his words and claims haven’t matched reality and let the voters decide.

          • demsaresatanic

            have those receptive to them for the most part, the proper attack angle is emotion, primarily fear.

          • Flagstaff

            that has replaced Hope and Change for the Dems, even though they don’t say it.

            I was speaking metaphorically about an eduction project, but that’s more or less what’s called for to make people recognize that their savior is responsible for their problems.

            I agree about the need to instill fear into people about what will happen if the Won is re-elected. But that’s going to require the same education effort. That may be a lot harder, in fact. Maybe it could be target to certain areas–oil producing states, Gulf coast, etc., but those may be in our camp already.

          • demsaresatanic

            argument is weak in my view, it is counterpunched too easily with the dem soak the rich class-warfare theme, and an electorate stupid enough to fall for Obama once has already demonstrated its ignorance of economics. What those of us here see easily with respect to economics, the electorate at large sees only vaguely, if at all, and it is not practical to try to educate the electorate at large on economics. Obama’s character must be attacked directly.

          • Dave_A

            Because the price of food has nothing to do with the value of the dollar (an easy response for Obama), the value of the dollar isn’t seriously impacted simply by federal spending, and because a ‘strong dollar’ monetary policy in the face of a deflationary recession would have been economic suicide (McCain (Or any of the *sane* GOP candidates from 08 – FDT, etc) wouldn’t have done any different…. The last time we had ‘strong-dollar’ policies, was in response to Nixon/Ford/Cater-era inflation – the key word being in-response-to, since right now our problem is too little inflation not too much – and back then there actually was inflation to respond to).

          • snowshooze

            Ha. He shouldn’t be allowed to own a pet.

          • acat

            When was the last time anyone’s seen Bo?

            Mew

          • snowshooze

            And has his own souped up 747 to ride in.
            It’s a dog’s life…

          • Flagstaff

            approximate quote from Dick Morris, ?It?s very difficult to unseat an incumbent by showing that he?s done a bad job. It?s a lot easier to unseat him by showing voters that he lied to them the first time in order to get elected.?

            Likewise, better to show that Obama lied during the 2008 campaign, rather than to call him a liar. A subtle difference, but one that can avoid a sympathy backlash and avoid the “racist” label.

            The campaign should focus on what he said and what he’s done since, the differences, and what were actually the right things to say and do, but don’t bother with the name-calling.

      • jamesm

        One PPP poll and people lose their heads. Rasmussen has Santorum ahead and Santorum will take the most of the undecided voters. He outperforms the poll numbers in many states. If he wins by 4 points that is a good victory. Too much Romneymania. Wait till the 24th and we will see.

        • Flagstaff

          Himself.

    • APA Guy

      To say you are making a ridiculous leap is an understatement. Santorum is coming back to Earth…nothing more, nothing less.

      The fact is, Romney is rising to the top and will be our nominee. It is time for Santorum and Gingrich to get out and rally behind our only choice to replace the most destructive president this country has ever seen before it’s too late. This is not to say that we shouldn’t keep holding Romney to task…just that we need to stop the in-fighting because the race for the nomination is OVER.

      • zachv

        Like I said, I do not like Santorum, but in the context of a two man Republican race and having the result we’ve run a politician who’s so disliked and such a terrible candidate that he can’t even win his home state that he represented for umpteen years? Yeesh.

        • acat

          Two other words. Walter. Mondale.

          Just sayin’…

          Mew

          • zachv

            In their respective Democratic presidential primaries. And if Santorum did lose his … Yeah, I’m standing by my “I’d be hecka embarrassed.”

          • acat

            and only Mondale carried his home state in the general, IIRC.

            (of course, Mondale carried *nothing* but his home state.)

            There’s varying degrees of embarrassed, y’see… we’re nowhere near the bottom yet.

            Mew

        • aesthete

          I thought the purpose of this site was to make the Republican party something we could be proud of, no?

          • elizaliza

            “I thought the purpose of this site was to make the Republican party something we could be proud of, no?”

            No. the purpose of this site is to talk about conservative ideas, REAL conservative ideas!

          • Frederick

            After all, there’s plenty we can do on this site to help re-make the party. Just need people to get involved.

            (Or in my case, get back into the fray. Hi, everybody!)

          • APA Guy

            We are in a state of emergency. Our nation’s future is at stake and we can not suffer 4 more years of Obama. THAT needs to be the mission of this site through November.

          • snowshooze

            I sure wouldn’t want to send someone to half-ass the job, blow it and be promptly replaced by a Democrat in the next election.
            And in Romney’s case, no fears of him being “replaced” by a Democrat, only exchanged for another one.

          • APA Guy

            It’s Romney or Obama…PERIOD. I will take Mitt Romney 100% of the time and think the country will be better if he is elected.

            Like I said, now is not the time to stomp in protest because we didn’t get our ideal candidate. Even the most ardent Romney basher must understand that he will be far better for the country and its economy than B. Hussein Obama during the next four years.

          • Flagstaff

            right.

    • JSobieski

      nt

      • zachv

        I don’t think Santorum will last until Pennsylvania. He needs to drop out of the race regardless, but if he’s losing Pennsylvania in the polls, he’d drop. Or … so I’d hope.

    • steve962

      Low blow or not, Santorum is far from universally loved by PA Republicans. His high original polling numbers were mostly because people here in the state have forgotten why we began to really dislike him — and he’s done an excellent job of reminding us of those reasons.

      I expect turnout to be fairly high. Santorum is motivating a lot of the registered Republicans in my area who don’t often vote in primaries — to get out and make sure he doesn’t win PA. Alas, I can’t be convinced he won’t motivate his supporters as well, so it’s anyone’s guess if he’ll actually squeak out a win or not. I suspect not – but as I said in another comment, I’ve underestimated the gullibility of my fellow Pennsylvanians in the past.

      I disagree with mbecker908 that *any* loss would be a stake through his heart of his future political career — Santorum demonstrates more than most that people’s memories are short, and I’d expect him to run again in the future in the case of a small margin loss. But if he loses by a big margin, *that* would do the trick – he’d never be able to run again. OTOH, if it looks like that might happen, he’ll probably drop out of the race before the primary.

      His losing PA wouldn’t be particularly embarrassing for Republicans, though — quite the contrary. I think the fact he’s been in the race this long has been more of an embarrassment – and putting the final nail into his campaign’s coffin can only be seen as a positive thing for the party.

  • hls87

    But he doesn’t so he probably will.. Santorum was finished in politics after 2006 and his quixotic 2012 campaign has done nothing to resurrect his defunct career. Finishing second in a one man race is not a big resume builder. His campaign drew attention to Romney’s weakness, but also to his own. He has no realistic prospect of winning any elective office again, unless he wants to run for a House seat in PA. He’ll probably prefer a gig on Fox and losing his home state to Romney won’t hurt him much in his new life as an entertainer.

    Right now the object of the game for Santorum is to stay in the public eye as long as possible. He’ll keep his campaign alive as long as there are any contests he can win still on the calendar and Romney hasn’t nailed down 1,114. He’ll cultivate an image as tough fighter for conservative causes (which is utterly at odds with reality, but never mind) and then dine out on that image for the rest of his life.

    He’ll never run for President again because if he did he’d become the new Harold Stassen.

  • bk

    I have to say that Santorum is really starting to look like an idiot.

    Maybe it’s good if he stays in and loses PA, then we should never hear from him again.

    • elizaliza

      …. by liberals, can they vote in the PA primary?
      also: would that be so bad? If Santorum wins the primary, the “Anyone but OBama” stuff kicks in and we’d have a real conservative in the WH

      • Ender

        I am kinda almost pretty sure you are daily kos denizen – first railing about Santorum being theocratic, then supporting him here, then calling Romney “rmoney”, and other weirdnesses :) As to your hopeful question, no PA is a closed primary so your liberals can’t vote there.

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

        Only Republicans. Liberal Republicans – and increasingly conservative ones – prefer Romney in big numbers.

        • Frederick

          …you tend have a larger number of moderate and liberal Republicans voting. And I don’t think many people there have forgiven Rick for his past acts.

  • http://thethinkingvoter.blogspot.com abierubin

    This is the only description for this Diary. number one to proclaim Santorum lost conservative votes in PA in 06. his opponent in the primary didn’t even come close. the only reason he lost the general was for his support for the Iraq surge and tough sanctions on Iran. the ads against were War monger War monger. #2 to proclaim Romney is not running ads in PA and his super PAC is false not only that robo calls r being send by the Romney super PAC for the last 2 weeks. and here is just a point on the PPP poll for the 3 days after SC primary Newt was up 10% in FL but he lost by 15% after MO MN CO for few days Santorum was 15% in MI but he lost it by 3% after Romney Super Tuesday Romney was up in MS AL but he lost it very simple the coverage after one wins a state gives a boost for a few days but after a few days every thing goes back to normal.

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

      and she’s going to blow everybody away.

      And blah blah blah.

      You’re a completely ignorant jackass who’s proven himself to be so with every post.

      Go back to C4P. You personally bring down the IQ of Redstate.

    • Frederick

      You mean all the other stuff, like voting against Right to Work and half a dozen other non-conservative acts didn’t weigh on anyone’s mind or make them just stay home?

      I highly doubt that.

      • littlehouse18

        I suspect they do not, and that abierubin is correct – only the stuff in the ads (demogoguery in this case) plus the general anti-Bush sentiment gets attention.

        • acat

          Anti-Bush sentiment.
          Pro-Casey sentiment.
          “They’re both anti-abortion so it doesn’t matter”*….
          Anti-war sentiment.
          Pro-right-to-work sentiment.
          Pro-small-government sentiment.
          Took money from a PA school district to teach kids living in VA.
          …

          The point is, there were (and are) a lot of reasons to dislike Santorum’s record. It’s not just the ads, saying that demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of how ads and voter perception works.

          Further, Abie’s assertion that “winning a State gives a boost for a couple days” cuts both ways… it works against Santorum just as well as against Romney.

          Santorum’s close-second and then victory in Iowa got him a significant boost – obviously – but unlike Romney, Santorum’s not been able to convert it into delegates because his victories have been in smaller proportional States.

          That’s where y’all completely miss the point – Romney is running a delegate strategy, all he has to do is place or show in every State and win the ones where Santorum isn’t on the ballot and .. he wins.

          Santorum (and Gingrich) have been completely unable to knock Romney off this strategy, and their window to do so is shrinking fast.

          Short of a *very* significant misstep on Romney’s part – getting caught with the proverbial live boy or dead girl might do it – there’s no way to stop him.

          Mew

          * note – this voter attitude should be thoroughly discredited, any Dem who claims to be pro-life should be met with derision and photos of Bart Stupak .. but apparently it’s a lesson that must be re-learned repeatedly for some.

  • acat

    Thanks for propping this loser up over several better choices, and ensuring we’re stuck with Nominee Romney.

    /sarc

    Mew

    • barleycorn

      I hadn’t thought about it like that so you just gave me something new to be annoyed about.

      Friggin Iowans.

      • acat

        Go look it up.

        Mew

        • EyeOnThePrize

          I looked up Goodhart’s law and would like if would to expand just a bit on what you mean and how it applies in this situation. I kind of understand the economic and social sides of Goodhart, but having a hard time wrapping my mind around the political part. Are you saying that if we take away all the incentives of being FIRST, then being first loses its power? Anyway, I wish everybody just voted on the same day in all fifty states. I’m not sure that would be possible or even legal at this point.

          I think something must change big-time or conservatives will get shut-out time and again. It seems like campaigns start anew as soon as the previous election is over. I think EE could vouch for the political industrial complex must be fed 24-7/365.

          • JSobieski

            Money and organization become the only thing if everyone votes on the same day. I realize that you support Romney (who clearly would benefit from such a rule), but it is not a good idea (even if Phil Gramm was a better candidate than Bob Dole in 1996)

          • EyeOnThePrize

            I would be all for that or a rotating system of some sort. J, do you think the primary/caucus events run too long? This year was basically from New Years to June 26 — that’s only one week short of 6 months.

          • acat

            I think a lottery, held at the GOP convention, makes a lot of sense.

            Every State meeting a few criteria may choose to participate.
            Minimum requirements:
            – must have no more than seven Electoral Votes
            – must have a functioning State GOP
            – must have a *hard* *closed* primary.

            This would let the GOP accurately measure excitement and effectiveness of the various campaigns .. and that’s the goal of the primary season, right?

            Mew

          • naraht

            I’m not sure what states you consider not to have a “functioning State GOP”. DC might qualify, but you figure Vermont, Hawaii and Massachusetts either have or have had state-wide elected officials within the last two years (VT & HI governors, MA a current Senator.)

            Working off of Fairvote.org and counting only truly closed (no semi-closed) Republican primaries (what the Dem’s do shouldn’t matter) with seven or less EV. The list would be

            Maine
            Connecticut
            Delaware
            Iowa
            North Dakota
            South Dakota
            Kansas
            Oklahoma
            New Mexico
            Wyoming
            Idaho
            Utah
            Nevada
            Oregon

            Louisiana and Kentucky have 8EV, which is the number that Iowa had when it became important as First in the Nation in the 1970s (through 1990)

          • acat

            (I like their map)

            Oregon would be one that I wonder about having a truly functional State GOP .. but wouldn’t it be amazing to watch the candidate trying to appeal to Bend or Medford instead of Ames or Des Moines?

            Mew

          • naraht

            Where did you get the information on open v closed v. part closed?

            I agree that it has been quite a while since there was a state wide elected official in Oregon (and there are some state wide offices that won’t even *have* Republicans on the ballot in 2012), but given that the Oregon State House is split 30-30, I can’t really call them non-functional. If you had a state with Hawaii’s legislative balance *and* Oregon’s record on Statewide office, then I would exclude them..

            Oregon gets trickier than Iowa, because Iowa doesn’t have any areas that are *truly* hostile to Republicans. Do the Republicans candidates stay in Oregon CD2 (Bend, Medford, Ashland, etc.) or do they go to the rest of the state including “The People’s Republic of Portland” ™ (yes it is a real company http://thepeoplespdx.com/ , bizarre)

          • Frederick

            …getting the states to accept their demoted status. As I recall, either New Hampshire or Iowa has a law (a law!) saying they’ve got to be 1 week earlier than any other primary. How do you enforce it against such difficulties?

          • acat

            Basically, same strategy one uses to handle a whiny toddler.

            Mew

          • Frederick

            …any RNC Chairman would have the stones to enforce that?

          • acat

            …

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            That leaves:

            Connecticut
            Delaware
            South Dakota
            Oklahoma
            New Mexico
            Utah
            Oregon

          • acat

            Yes, caucuses are problematic, you can tell because Ron Paul likes them.

            No caucuses. Maybe phrase it a little more delicately… “Routinely see over 20% participation in the primaries”.

            Do any caucuses get near 20%?

            Mew

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            It’s hard to motivate people to attend when the delegates you vote for can change their mind on a whim.

          • DaveWT4

            There are two ways you could do this:

            Instant Run-off: Instead of voting for one candidate you would rank them all. In the first round you drop the last place candidate and add their votes to their #2 selections, and so on until you have one candidate.

            Or do a primary run-off every month starting in January. Each month the last place candidate is forced out of the Primary.

            I know it sounds a little too Survivor-ish, but it would get rid of fringe candidates like Ron Paul so the adults can actually debate.

          • elizaliza

            1. they do it like this because apperently what people in Iowa hear or see, is unnoticed by people in South Carolina
            2. they can sell more TV ads this way.
            3. if we’d had your system, Santorum would have been toast a long time ago, we’d be talking about Newt vs Mitt.
            4.Primaries are sure good entertainment.
            5. Also, the fact that 400 caucusing Iowans (or whatever arcane system hinges on a few hundred or thousand people) could decide who becomes the de facto King of the World, should NEVER be abandoned!

          • acat

            is that Iowa has become so observed that it’s degrading the quality of what Iowa measures….

            This would be the equivalent of opening the back door to check the outside thermometer enough that the temperature readings change…

            Iowa had, at one point, given a good shakedown for campaigns, and reliably knocked out losers… but this is no longer happening reliably.

            Time to find a better measuring stick….

            Mew

          • EyeOnThePrize

            n t

          • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

            I was thinking a regional setup where the voting is divided by geographic regions that are also carved out kind of evenly by population.

            Like the Northeast from Ohio/PA up to Maine goes in January, the Southeast from DC to Florida and west a bit goes in February, the Midwest and West minus Texas/California goes in March/April etc with Texas/California/everyone else(Alaska/HI/Possessions etc) going last with them. Each presidential election cycle shift the regions to the next month (and one of them back to first month as needed) so that no one goes first every single time. Draw straws or whatever to start the original order.

            Just thought, might be more fair than the convoluted system we have now.

            And I don’t blame Iowa for the current state of affairs. I do consider that the people who were to quick to call the state on the razor thin margin biased the remainder and gave Romney and edge he shouldn’t have had and would not have survived without.

    • nepanyrush

      If not for Newt trying to compete after it was clear he was done, Santorum would have won Ohio and likely Michigan. Those might have been game changers. As it turned out, his hanging around, for whatever reason, was just what Romney needed to split the conservative vote and eke out wins at key, momentum shifting momemts. I am not sure what Newt is doing even now — hoping to keep his name alive to sell books?

      I would not get upset with Santorum. He ran a pretty remarkable race, presented conservative positions, and even got Romney to shift (Rush’s “maybe the conservative we have been waiting for is Romney”). But in retrospect the race probably was over when Newt decided to hang around long after it was clear he did not have a chance.

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

        .

      • znjs

        It doesn’t make any sense to me that having a bunch of candidates who are mostly more popular then Romney but manage to split the vote so that Romney wins is a system that we should be stuck with.

        And yes, we need to rotate which states go first in the primary process too. Maybe if Big Idea Newt wanted to really be helpful he could start proposing things like this.

      • acat

        Your assertion fails because those who support Gingrich do not uniformly become Santorum supporters if there’s no more Newt….

        Perhaps less than 50% become Santorum’s, perhaps a bit higher, but enough go to Mitt to keep Santorum quixotic.

        Mew

        • elizaliza

          wasn’t there some poll which indicated that should either newt or rick drop out, then mitt would profit most?

          • acat

            And what I said was Gingrich supporters != Santorum supporters.

            The != means “not equal to”. My post was clear regarding this.

            Mew

  • hls87

    which had a chance to retrieve Iowa’s fumble and blew it. Pluralities in two of the first three states chose to cast protest votes for risible candidates who had no reasonble prospect of winning either the nomination or the general election. As soon as the field was narrowed to Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Paul, Romney’s nomination was assured.

    What an appalling spectacle.

    • acat

      was the only Conservative visibly working to elect candidates nationwide.

      Had *any* of the conservative candidates done that as loudly as Palin did, we wouldn’t be talking about Romney except as a twice-loser today.

      This is caused by conservatives standing in twelve little tents pissing out while the squishy-establishment types crowd into one big tent and swamp us.

      Mew

      • morrigan

        I would not say that only Palin was working to elect conservatives nationwide in 2010.

        A couple of links for you.

        http://shark-tank.net/2012/03/28/marco-rubio-endorses-romney-for-presidentwe-speculate-he-will-accept-the-vp-nod/

        Read it through to the end.

        http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00449280&cycle=2010

        http://lonelyconservative.com/2012/01/romney-endorsed-ann-marie-buerkle-in-ny25-gingrich-endorsed-dede-scozzafava-in-ny23/

        • acat

          Try reading it again, Morrigan. I used words like “visibly”, and “loudly” and gave an example of Palin so you’d have a bar to measure by.

          Your boy Mitt went so far under the bar as to be unnoticeable.

          Mew

          • morrigan

            I don’t know how you are measuring just how “loudly” different people supported other people.

            >”an example of Palin so you?d have a bar to measure by”

            I don’t share your opinion about the great height of Palin’s bar.

          • acat

            the bar was set pretty much in the middle. (Reagan set a higher one)

            Romney sailed right under it.

            And yes, I have a decibel meter, or at least the political equivalent – I heard all about Palin from certain of my associates from 2007 to 2011 … never a peep about Romney.

            He may have been pulling strings behind the scenes, but he was not trying to unite conservatives.

            Mew

  • streetwise

    The left will demonize him as a right wing crazy. That enterprise, like socialism in general, will take up a lot of their evenings- and their money and credibility.

    Meanwhile, we can launch our “Watch On The RINO” venture to keep him honest and undermine the left’s message.

    • http://lukos.com Ed54

      make the case in the general election that he is a centrist.

  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    Casey won against Santorum because of a variety of factors that had would have crushed most Republicans that year.

    I won’t count Santorum out until he say’s he’s done.

    I definitely won’t count PA as lost until the last vote is counted.

    • acat

      and Santorum couldn’t figure out how to fight back from that.

      Mew

    • conservativerock5

      We have to get Sam Rohrer in to the Senate.

      First he will have to beat the pick of the Gov. and PA GOP party-Steve Welch. Welch is a liberal Republican who admittedly voted for Obama last time-then lied about why multiple times.

      • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

        Since being elected Casey has also been pretty much the out of sight out of mind Senator.

        In my personal opinion if Casey had a less famous/influential family name he likely would not have been able to ladder climb and win against Santorum.

        We’ll see how it goes in a few weeks.

        • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

          I mean lack of negative record.

          He basically was elected to a position, kept from saying anything to horribly career killing and used his office to run for the next higher office until he beat Santorum for Senate and turned into the that guy we never see and almost never hear from anymore…

  • http://barbershopvalues.com daconia

    Be of good cheer, fellows. I don’t like either much, but at least we’ll be getting rid of that cardboard cutout we have now as President.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/a_real_person_for_president.html

  • http://lukos.com Ed54

    If he wins, it gets discounted as his home state, and changes nothing. If he loses, it’s game over.

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

      And if he does win it won’t be by any more than 4 since Democrats can’t vote.

  • Filibuster Keaton

    Once again, team Romney tears down another Republican because there’s no argument for Romney, just against everybody else. If Marco Rubio were in the primary, all we’d be hearing about is how he didn’t even manage 50% of the vote in 2010 and lied about something or other.

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

      Santorum’s problems are not the result of anything Romney’s done. They’re the result of everything Santorum’s done, and that’s his history.

      I’m no fan of Romney, but Santorum is beyond the pale.

      • Filibuster Keaton

        Thank you! I had no idea Santorum had lost re-election to the Senate and had views social Liberals found old-fashioned. I feel enlightened now.

        You continue to ignore that Romney’s nomination is without purpose if his favorability’s frozen in negative double digits.

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

          if that’s your take away.

          I don’t like Romney, never have. That doesn’t matter. The POINT, other than the one on your head, is that Santorum isn’t going to do well in PA and has no organization or money to carry on effectively after that.

          And, in PA this time around, Santorum’s problems are of Santorum’s making. Especially with PA voters.

  • Ned Reck

    Those good’ ol’ boys… are poised… for our ultimate nominee…. the great…

    Mit.Tsunami of 2012.

    Ned Reck

  • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

    Why most active conservatives in PA are voting for Rick Santorum?

    Much of what you write is well known to us who live here and a few things we know, are apparently, unknown to you who do not live here, or are relatively new to the conservative cause, who are not three-legged conservatives, or who are not values voters.

    For starters, many of us did hold it against Santorum that he campaigned for Arlen Specter. But considering the alternatives and choices we have right now, we’re for Rick Santorum here.

    Second, we are aware that some who want to maintain their future viability to run for other offices, even for President, walk away from battles they might not be sure they will win, as Mitt Romney did, disappointing conservatives at the time, who watched our best chance against Senator Kennedy, just walk away.

    If that’s what you prefer that’s fine but don’t be shocked if in the battle against Obama you see him doing the same thing again and again – after all, you aren’t complaining about it, and you aren’t upset about it, so perhaps it is best if he is the GOP nominee he does that, and if he is President, does it again. But you read it here first, if you did not already know, we conservatives have been there, done that, and are holding out for a better deal than another Nixon “run to the right in the primary and veer left in the general” and unsaid: go even further left in office.

    Further, you underestimate or don’t even note that the son of a very popular conservative-minded Governor Casey – who really angered the liberal left in his Democratic Party by his constant strong support of the right to life cause – was who ran against Santorum. It isn’t just that it was a very, very good year for the Democrats. Even in conservative Virginia when “conservative sounding” Democrats run against either a divided GOP or against someone who had ticked off conservatives – which Santorum’s earlier support of Arlen Specter certainly did – is the formula for victory. It worked for them against Santorum – the “perfect storm” And it has NOTHING at all to do with the dynamics of the vote coming up here in PA on April 24.

    Further, we need to look beyond ONLY the past track record, as critical as that is. There is something you can criticize about EACH of the three mainstream candidates who are left, and plenty you can say good. We need to look beyond that and ask what do they stand for today, and what are they articulating today?

    Beyond question, the candidate the liberal-left hates the most today is Rick Santorum, and if for no other reason that’s a great one for me and others here in PA to be voting for Santorum.

    I’ve written a number of times on this topic and for those who are in any way open minded about this I recommend my most recent essays on why I’m for Rick Santorum here in PA for April 24, especially the last one:

    In which I point out – don’t laugh so hard Romneyites they hate your guts too, not just us who stood with Santorum at Gettybsurg a few weeks ago:
    http://www.redstate.com/hanoverhenry/2012/03/21/gettysburg-a-tale-of-two-crowds-santorum-vs-warmed-over-1960s-protestors/

    A little closer look at who these people are who hate us all – Romney, Gingrich, Santorum. They say it is “us vs them” and it is the one thing they are saying that’d I’d have to agree with:
    http://www.redstate.com/hanoverhenry/2012/03/22/who-are-they-who-hate-us-all-romney-santorum-gingrich-supporters-alike/

    Lets call it what it is: they are in fact, the barbarians at the gate, and when you devote such negative to any of the three mainstream candidates – Romney, Santorum or Gingrich – you are siding with them, with Obama and with them:
    http://www.redstate.com/hanoverhenry/2012/03/23/mad-barbarians-at-the-gate-in-gettysburg/

    And today I summed it all up – Why I’m voting for Rick Santorum on April 24 here in PA, even as I keep my eye on where our real enemy is – not Newt, not Mitt but over there on the left, the far left, Obama:

    http://www.redstate.com/hanoverhenry/2012/04/05/why-im-voting-for-rick-santorum-here-in-pa-on-april-24/

    It is not as the last writer said, “game over” ever – because as Ronald Reagan said in 1976, our cause goes on, and I do appreciate what Newt and Rick have contributed when they speak of the issues of importance to us conservatives, and I only hope that regardless of how things work out in the primary we will face our real enemy and win in November. And if it isn’t Newt (as it surely won’t be) and it isn’t Rick, then I hope the latter will join the former in continuing to speak out in books, speaking appearances, movies, on youtube and in every forum available to him.

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

      Here’s the only points that matter:

      1. Santorum has been on a downhill slide in PA for the last five weeks.
      2. He has neither organization or money to compete much beyond PA and a narrow win in PA won’t get him either.
      3. A large swath of PA voters really have no affinity for him. He’s a VA resident and has been for many years. He’s seemingly gone out of his way as an elected official to piss PA’s off and they have long memories.
      4. Republicans in PA are not as a whole all that conservative.
      5. Santorum’s campaign to this point is most notable for buying a result in Iowa, moralizing every issue without prompting by the media and sounding like a whiner.

      Personally I hope he stays in and is destroyed in PA. I never want to see him in a political role again. I’m very happy with the last Iowa experiment, Mike Huckabee, living out his dreams on Fox. Maybe Santorum can get a gig like that.

      • acat

        (cheshire grin)

      • http://lukos.com Ed54

        I don’t really know, but am reminded of James Carville’s famous description of PA as “Philadelphia in the east, Pittsburgh in the west, and Alabama in the middle.”

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

          that the middle is mostly rural and they were really hacked off when Santorum was taking money from a Pennsylvania school district because he was home schooling the kids in Virginia.

    • elizaliza

      oh wow, with all that money romny is still struggling in a blue state, that’s weird or tells you somehting

      • Ender

        it’s Rick’s home state and he’s been ahead of Romney there by as much as 25 points just a few weeks ago. But you are obviously not serious with nonsense like that.

  • Bob_Frazier

    So much support for Romney, the one candidate who is a self-confessed RINO. Let that one sink in.

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

      you’re seeing understanding that he will be the nominee, Santorum is done. And yeah, he’s probably a RINO by any reasonable definition, but he’s better than Obama.

  • Bob_Frazier

    So much support for Romney, the one candidate who is a self-confessed RINO. Let that one sink in.

  • Viet71

    Sanotrum has little inherent appeal as a nominee apart from his genuineness. He satisfies the wishes of so-cons, as I understand, but in doing so he scares (unreasonably but nonetheless truly) lots women voters and turns off lots of indies.

    I’d vote for Santorum without hesitation in the general election. I see him as a weaker opponent than Romney for Obama, because of the way he has painted himself into a corner on social issues.

  • alliek

    I don’t think anyone can honestly say that Rick Santorum has anything to be embarrassed about. He has overcome so much with so little. He is by far the underdog in this whole primary, with hardly any money, staffing and endorsements but yet has managed to win 11 states. If he stays in the race he should win several states in May. Is that why everyone (Romney supporters) are so vocal about him getting out now? What is truly embarrassing is a candidate who believes what the polls tell him to believe in and has been running for president for like six years and has so much money, and has all the Washington insiders backing you and still can’t seal the deal and get the base excited about you! Now that’s embarrassing!

  • Pingback: Website

  • Pingback: Cinderella Zartman

  • Pingback: Signe Ponds

  • Pingback: Carletta Snaples

  • Pingback: Alexis Fyler