The more I look at this, the more I believe this is it for Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential run. The state he was born in will determine if he falls by the wayside of this presidential election cycle. With neighboring Ohio looking like Santorum is running away with that state, evidenced by a prominent endorsement switch, the stakes couldn’t be higher for Romney. A Michigan loss would be catastrophic from a public perception standpoint
My guess is currently Santorum is in the lead by 5-7 points 11 days out looking at the polls with no evidence of any momentum either way since the first polls after Santorum’s tri-state sweep. Santorum’s time until February 28th consists of living in Michigan with an Ohio visit or two sprinkled in. Though Romney may drop a ton of negative ads in Michigan, Santorum actually is quite attractive to the people of Michigan with his ideas for jump-starting the manufacturing sector. His record in Washington though some positions he has taken tick conservatives off, are actually appealing to people in Michigan. Also, Santorum has been on a fundraising tear which allows him to be able to adequately respond to Romney attacks and expand his organizational infrastructure. In essence, Romney is needing Santorum to trip, or Newt Gingrich to siphon off votes from Santorum, keeping Romney within striking distance. Speaking of which:
Ten million bucks could give Gingrich a last shot at the nomination. Though he’s writing off the February 28 votes in Michigan and Arizona, he could fare well in some of the ten Super Tuesday states that will vote on March 6, many of them southern states, including Newt’s home state of Georgia. But it’s possible that Mitt Romney is the real beneficiary here. The more the anti-Mitt vote is split, the better off he is. His nightmare is that either Gingrich or Rick Santorum drops out and the remaining candidate consolidates the conservative base and starts drawing majority votes in the primaries. Divide and conquer is Mitt’s winning formula.
But won’t much of that $10 million just go into negative attacks against Romney, who, it’s possible, can’t sustain much more damage before collapsing entirely himself? That’s not clear. Adelson was not thrilled with the Mitt-bashing his money funded in South Carolina, and it’s possible that he’s giving on the condition that Gingrich’s camp doesn’t disembowel Romney. As I wrote recently, Adelson likes Romney fine, and is comfortable with the idea of a Romney White House. His support for Gingrich has been a matter of friendship, not anti-Romneyism. And to hear the Wall Street Journal tell it, it’s Santorum whom Adelson thinks should not be the nominee.
You can imagine, then, the logical deal he might have struck with Gingrich backers: Here’s another ten million. Spend it on positive ads. Spend it slamming Santorum–especially in Michigan, please. But go easy on Mitt.
I don’t think this is so far fetched. Personally, I think Gingrich’s goose is cooked. His favorablility ratings have plummeted and voters in his camp and are stampeding to Santorum. The only reason for him to stay in the race would be to help…Romney? Last time I checked, Newt Gingrich wasn’t Mitt Romney’s greatest fan to put it lightly. Strange bedfellows to say the least. When the race gets down to a two-person race, Santorum absolutely cleans Romney’s clock.
There has been much made about an reverse Operation Chaos in Michigan by liberals helping Santorum win in Michigan which I think is kind of absurd. If Obama is so confident of creaming Santorum in a head-to-head matchup, why this?
The campaign sent an e-mail asking Obama’s Keystone State supporters to submit their most damning “recollections” of Santorum, who served as a congressman and a senator from Pennsylvania for 16 years before losing reelection in 2006.
Santorum became a favorite target of liberals with his passionate statements against homosexuality and abortion, but despite his deeply conservative take on social issues, he has shown some ability to connect with blue-collar voters in the GOP presidential race — voters who have been a hard sell for former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and could be crucial in a general election.
“Folks across the country are just starting to learn about Rick Santorum as he enjoys his newfound wave of popularity,” says the note, which was signed by Bill Hyers, Pennsylvania state director for Obama for America. “But people here have known him for some time. .?.?. And it’s on us to make sure the rest of the country sees Rick Santorum’s true colors.”
Will they start asking the “bitter clingers” in Pennsylvania, too? Team Obama seems very worried about that blue-collar vote, and they should be, especially in PA, to whom that “bitter clinger” remark was directed in 2008. Hillary Clinton beat Obama in Pennsylvania and Ohio by winning that demographic, and Santorum would be better positioned than Romney to do the same in a general election. Obama cannot win the White House if he loses both states in November, plus Indiana and possibly Wisconsin, where he’s already in trouble.
This was one of the chief advantages I was alluding to when I speculated what challenge as a candidate Santorum would pose to Obama. Those Reagan Democrats, blue collar union social conservatives. The talk all the time is who will get the independent swing voters where Obama has been hovering in the 35% range since 2010. However, Obama absolutely needs the backing of this very important group. If he doesn’t, Santorum will win in a walk in November.
Aside from this big problem, Obama has to worry about Greece defaulting, throwing Europe into a deeper recession and thus adversely affecting our economy, skyrocketing gas prices in the summer and the fall, and a debt ceiling fight that apparently is going to come up before Election Day. And people are worried that Obama is a shoe-in to get re-elected less than nine months out?
Jeff Emanuel
Santorum's "ideas" for manufacturing...
J. Leg (Diary) Friday, February 17th at 5:49PM EDT (link)… Amount to protectionism.
Is that really what we want from a supposedly conservative president?
The goal is to make our environment more attractive to companies, not punish companies for going to places that are more attractive.
yes
jamesm (Diary) Friday, February 17th at 6:03PM EDT (link)We are at a competive disadvantage against China and other countries. They subsidize their companies and put tariffs on our products. The chinese also artificially keep the yen low. Yes we must protect our markets.
“Weakness of attitude becomes weakness of character.” A. Einstein
Jamesm, its a global economy
charlemagne1979 Saturday, February 18th at 12:11AM EDT (link)that were operating in and its China who is at a disadvantage since tariffs on our products will limit the opportunity for the Chinese populace to be exposed to modern technology. Protecting our markets limits opportunity and competition which undermines the whole free market system. I don’t know about you but when I shop I look for quality not necessarily where the product is manufactured in. I want the most bang for my bucks.
a true free market
jamesm (Diary) Saturday, February 18th at 12:26AM EDT (link)is great. China in particular is a closed market to many of our goods. China keeps it’s currency artificially low. They make it difficult for American companies to penetrate their markets. It is not a two way street. They copy our products often ignoring patents, trademarks and copyrights. Any objective analysis puts American manufacturers at a competive disadvantage. We need to start dealing with tough. American products as a whole are better quality.
“Weakness of attitude becomes weakness of character.” A. Einstein
China's economy is filled with cronyism
charlemagne1979 Saturday, February 18th at 12:57PM EDT (link)just like ours has started to become since the days of George W. Your right China is not a two way street but frankly we shouldn’t care since it is their citizens who lose out. If they ignore patents, trademarks, and copyrights, then American companies should not be using them as a manufacturing base. In other words, they know what their getting themselves into once they begin setting up shop there. So their helping contribute to the problem.
“Any objective analysis puts American manufacturers at a competive disadvantage.” Yes, maybe with China but China does not represent the whole world. Again in a real free market society the consumers are the biggest beneficiaries and losers. In this case the Chinese people are losing out at better standards of living by being exposed to limit economic opportunity and limited quality products. On another note copying products does not necessarily mean that they will be of the same quality. I ve never heard of black markets rip offs being of similar quality to the real thing. Have you?
“We need to start dealing with tough. American products as a whole are better quality.” I agree that we need to start dealing tough with China, just not the way you envision. My approach would be to take our economic focus elsewhere in the developing world and are plenty of places to do so. Move our manufacturing plants elsewhere and start building stronger relations with new emerging economic nations. By neglecting China you are then doing the most damage to them. Unfortunately, we are doing anything but that.
You mean the Renminbi...
audax (Diary) Saturday, February 18th at 3:49AM EDT (link)Yen is the Japanese Currency and the Chinese cannot control its rate.
Audeamus pro audere est facere
yes
jamesm (Diary) Sunday, February 19th at 2:49PM EDT (link)I was thinking yuan.
“Weakness of attitude becomes weakness of character.” A. Einstein
0% corporate rate for manufacturers is protectionism?
RealQuiet (Diary) Friday, February 17th at 6:20PM EDT (link)Sounds like enticing manufacturers from around the world to set up shop in the U.S. by having the lowest corporate tax rate anywhere in the world for manufacturers. That’s competition, not protectionism.
helps larger corporations
jamesm (Diary) Friday, February 17th at 6:33PM EDT (link)but doesn’t help small manufacturers. Protecting our markets against unfair trade practices is “protectism?” How about stupidy if we don’t?
“Weakness of attitude becomes weakness of character.” A. Einstein
Wow
RealQuiet (Diary) Friday, February 17th at 6:41PM EDT (link)So going to a 0% corporate tax rate wouldn’t help a small manufacturer’s balance sheet and help them expand/hire more workers?
Yes
jamesm (Diary) Friday, February 17th at 6:49PM EDT (link)Many small manufactures are “S” corporations. Their profits end up being taxed as personal income. It would just be a larger advantage to large corporations.
“Weakness of attitude becomes weakness of character.” A. Einstein
Doesn't make sense
RealQuiet (Diary) Friday, February 17th at 7:07PM EDT (link)Your comments are leftist/union rhetoric “GOP is the party of the 1%, big corporations, etc.” and you’re visiting from Kos. The enticement to switch from an S corporation to a C corporation for the tax break alone would be incentive enough if the law was written this way. Any person can structure and choose a corporation that will yield them the most tax benefits and maximum opportunity to yield the most profit.
You are ridiculous
jamesm (Diary) Friday, February 17th at 7:54PM EDT (link)See comment below
“Weakness of attitude becomes weakness of character.” A. Einstein
RQ, you are correct that spliting the anti-Romney
demsaresatanic Friday, February 17th at 7:41PM EDT (link)vote favors Romney, however your conclusion;
“Personally, I think Gingrich’s goose is cooked. His favorablility(sic) ratings have plummeted and voters in his camp and are stampeding to Santorum. The only reason for him to stay in the race would be to help…Romney?”
is so obviously biased that it could pass for a NY Times editorial. I don’t remember you making that argument when Newt was on top of the polls and Santorum was in single digits, maybe I missed that post.
Sorry, don't see how Newt pulls another Lazarus here
RealQuiet (Diary) Friday, February 17th at 7:55PM EDT (link)You think I’m trying to dog Newt but that isn’t my intent. In order for Newt to regain his footing, Santorum has to stumble badly (which Romney would like to happen as well) and he hasn’t given any indication that he’s going to do that…yet. The only strong point I have seen in Newt is his speaking and debate skills. However, as a campaigner and organizationally, he’s been awful for the most part.
I'd also agree that Newt splits the anti-Romney vote
bonnman Friday, February 17th at 8:49PM EDT (link)and that hurts Santorum and by default helps Romney. The calls on Newt to drop out now are more a result of where we are in the primary I think. When Newt saw his surge of support it was very early in the race so there wasn’t much need to pressure Santorum. Now its a different story, time is running out. After April 1st the winner-takes-all states start and they heavily favor Romney. Super Tuesday is the last chance to damage Romney enough otherwise he will be the nominee. If Newt stays in for Super Tuesday he’ll hand Romney the nomination.
Neither Newt nor Santorum needs to drop out now!
WillWong (Diary) Friday, February 17th at 9:45PM EDT (link)Newt, Santorum, and Romney offers different plans for America. I personally like Newt’s plan the most. His is for radical change which is what the country needs.
Romney has problem getting past the 30% for the longest time. I don’t have any problem with Newt duking out with Santorum.
However, if those three guys keep dodging Newt in the debates, i might change my mind.
Time for Romney to drop out...
audax (Diary) Saturday, February 18th at 3:51AM EDT (link)…sounds like to me…
Audeamus pro audere est facere
That would be nice!
WillWong (Diary) Saturday, February 18th at 4:20AM EDT (link)nt
I got a better one.
charlemagne1979 Saturday, February 18th at 9:18PM EDT (link)Time for a new real Conservative candidate who has no baggage, a clean record, and can debate to step in. My question is, does such a candidate even exist??
My Joe Wilson moment: You lie
jamesm (Diary) Friday, February 17th at 7:52PM EDT (link)Not only are you completely wrong You sound like an establishment puppet. I owned my “S” corporation.
1) you must be quoting someone else idiot. I do not think “GOP is the party of the 1%, big corporations, etc” Your a liar
2) Enticement to switch? Maybe and maybe not. It depends on the legisllation. But we are not dealing with the hypothetical. Currently “S” corporations woudl not benefit.
3) GE pays how much in tax?
4) Small business needs help not multi national corporations most do not pay a lot of taxes so your proposal is
5) Visiting from “Kos?” You are a fool.
“Weakness of attitude becomes weakness of character.” A. Einstein
Sorry, but your words earlier state something different
RealQuiet (Diary) Friday, February 17th at 8:12PM EDT (link)And where did I particularly lie? Nowhere. You’re speaking the language of the Occupy movement which is venting at a company(s) and individuals who only worked hard and became huge and successful. So instead of getting angry, miserable, and downcast about how big your business maybe or where your life is at compared to someone else’s, go work harder and make your business bigger and drop the crappy attitude of envy and get positive. Why be angry at someone who is bigger than you and stop yourself from doing the same thing? Get out there, compete and be content with whatever comes your way.
You’re shooting down an idea/tax break even before the legislation has been written based on where things are right now? The point is simple. You’d talk to your accountant and choose the corporation that will yield you the most opportunity to profit. If the S corp pays you better on the bottom line, then go with that entity, if the C corp does, go with that one. Who knows how the legislation will be written but don’t pass judgment on an idea that hasn’t taken shape in Congress yet.
see below
jamesm (Diary) Friday, February 17th at 8:36PM EDT (link)nt
“Weakness of attitude becomes weakness of character.” A. Einstein
apology accepted
jamesm (Diary) Friday, February 17th at 8:36PM EDT (link)didn’t mean to be so harsh. I think Occupy people are ill informed. I live in California-front line for liberals. They are so anti-business, I don’t envy anyone. I promise. I was trying to speak what I know is the truth.
It most cases it makes little sense for an entrepreneur to start a “C” corporation in California under the current environment. I have talked to accountants, The point is that legislation does not help the small or medium businesses. It’s true-really. To make it worse, regulations are the same in most cases but large business have more resources.
I was particulary upset with the quotation marks implying a quote from me.
Again, didn’t mean to be so harsh
“Weakness of attitude becomes weakness of character.” A. Einstein
No problem james :) I didn't take it personal.
RealQuiet (Diary) Friday, February 17th at 8:46PM EDT (link)I see what you mean. I hate regulation laden legislation as well. They just increase costs that are passed onto the consumer. I don’t get anti-business people. Businesses are what create the jobs. Are the brunt of regulations from the state of California or the federal government? Sorry, have to be on guard for people from Kos who like to stir up trouble every once in a while here. What you have to put up with in California would make for a very interesting diary (hint, hint).
California regulations
jamesm (Diary) Friday, February 17th at 9:07PM EDT (link)have driven out so many businesses out of the state, State regulations and taxes are horrible. I have personally known more than a few businesses that have left to Texas and Nevada. Some companies will keep a small operation here but the brunt of their manufacturing is done in another state or overseas. Google, Facebook and Yahoo are all over here. But as far as manufacturing it doesn’t make any sense to not send it overseas. Labor rates are lower, regulations are less stringent, taxes are lower and material costs are less expensive. There are a lot less manufacturing companies here than say 10 years ago. The state is completely run by liberals. This is why the state is essentially bankrupt.
I will take the hint.
“Weakness of attitude becomes weakness of character.” A. Einstein
No different
charlemagne1979 Saturday, February 18th at 9:20PM EDT (link)here is NY. I learned it the hard way when I owned a restaurant a few years back. The environment was so anti-small business that it wasn’t worth my time staying opened. I am convinced that the era of the free market is over in the solid blue states. Hello Socialism.