It’s not over, but …

posted at 8:40 am on February 1, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Did Mitt Romney resuscitate his “inevitability” argument with his win last night?  The subtext of his victory speech seemed to make that claim, Reid Epstein argues at Politico:

Mitt Romney didn’t just claim victory Tuesday night — he sent a clear message to Newt Gingrich: The nomination is mine.

The former Massachusetts governor scored a decisive win in the Florida presidential primary — by a higher percentage than even in his New Hampshire stronghold. Celebrating the results, he looked past Gingrich and his other opponents but offered a clear appeal to the voters backing them in both the tone and substance of his speech.

Well, Team Romney might want to keep the fireworks boxed up a wee bit longer, as hubris is as bad a political aphrodisiac as desperation.  Romney has a grand total of 84 delegates now, putting him far into the lead but 1,060 delegates shy of a majority, too.  He’ll have to put more distance between himself and the rest of the pack for his opponents to concede the contest to him.

Still, the big win in Florida does put Romney in the driver’s seat, as I wrote for CNN late last night:

Is the primary over at this point? Gingrich would vociferously object to that notion, as would Rick Santorum and Ron Paul. It does begin to get more difficult from this point forward, though. Until now, the primary states have come one at a time. Starting next week, states start coming simultaneously, and organization will begin to make more of a difference than it has, even in Florida.

Romney’s campaign announced its fourth-quarter fundraising before South Carolina, and it was an eye-popping $24 million, with almost $20 million of it in the bank. Gingrich only raised $10 million, his team announced a few hours before the polls closed in Florida, with $1.2 million in debt still on the books. That kind of fiscal dominance will allow the Romney team to do a lot more in parallel primaries than Gingrich can. And that will make a big difference as seven states hold contests in the next four weeks, and then ten more hold theirs on the same day in five weeks.

In order for the other Republicans to catch up now, they will need a big stumble from Romney.  Their strategy going into the caucus-heavy month of February will be to score one or two wins as a way to change the narrative, not only in relation to Romney but in relation to each other.  Gingrich demanded that Santorum pull out of the race yesterday, and Santorum began running ads in Nevada and Colorado that targeted Gingrich rather than Romney.  Both of them want to be the consolidation candidate, and neither can while the other won’t quit — and that helps Romney, too, who has plenty of money to fight both simultaneously when needed.

Even if one of them dropped out, though, that wouldn’t mean that the entire non-Romney vote would coalesce behind the survivor.  This argument got expressed by my friend Kevin McCullough on Twitter thusly: “The REAL story in Florida: Votes 4Romney 765,834, against Romney 882,424!”  That, however, assumes that everyone’s second choice wouldn’t be Romney.  PPP’s final Florida poll showed that Romney came in second in the second-choice category at 18%, with Rick Santorum in first at 26% and Gingrich slightly behind Romney at 17%, and 31% saying “someone else/not sure.”  It also assumes Paul’s voters would flock to either Gingrich or Santorum, which seems laughably speculative at best.  If Santorum had dropped out, Gingrich wouldn’t have won Florida, and the reverse is even more true.

The fat lady ain’t singing, but she’ll be clearing her throat in four weeks if Romney doesn’t make a big mistake.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

The fat lady ain’t singing, but she’ll be clearing her throat in four weeks if Romney doesn’t make a big mistake.

Talking heads on Twitter are saying he already has with this.

Flora Duh on February 1, 2012 at 8:43 AM

The fat lady ain’t singing, but she’ll be clearing her throat in four weeks if Romney doesn’t make a big mistake.

The victories of the Tea Party in 2010 haven’t been officially pissed away yet, but the bladder muscles are starting to loosen. With Willard closing in on the nomination, the era of big government isn’t even close to being over.

Romney vs. Obama = the Obamney ticket, and America loses either way.

DRayRaven on February 1, 2012 at 8:45 AM

My grandmother used to say “Don’t count your chickens before
they are hatched!”

Again I say:

Romney 47% equals 47%

Gingrich 32% + Santorum 13% equals 45%
(Note – Ron Paul 7%)

If either Newt or Santorum dropped out………the race would
be much closer than it appears on the surface. Liberal vs.
conservative.

Amjean on February 1, 2012 at 8:47 AM

Did Mitt Romney resuscitate his “inevitability” argument with his win last night?

Yes. Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on February 1, 2012 at 8:47 AM

Talking heads on Twitter are saying he already has with this.

Flora Duh on February 1, 2012 at 8:43 AM

Romney continues, “We will hear from the Democrat party, the plight of the poor…. You can focus on the very poor, that’s not my focus…. The middle income Americans, they’re the folks that are really struggling right now and they need someone that can help get this economy going for them.”

yikes

nathor on February 1, 2012 at 8:48 AM

The trick is to destroy your opponent without getting your own hands dirty. Romney’s got that one down. Will he be as rough on Obama? Not likely.

RBMN on February 1, 2012 at 8:48 AM

The fat lady ain’t singing, but she’ll be clearing her throat in four weeks if Romney doesn’t make a big mistake.

If anything was shown by the results last night it was this. Even if Republicans (especially females) are not thrilled with Romney, they are not fans of Newt as the leading non-Romney.

My advice to Romney would be that he needs to figure out how to reach out to conservatives. The panhandle went for Newt which shows that Romney has a real problem on his right flank. If he is the inevitable nominee, the time to start mending fences is now.

Happy Nomad on February 1, 2012 at 8:48 AM

Romney: “I’m Not Concerned About The Very Poor”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/01/romney_im_not_concerned_about_the_very_poor.html

liberal4life on February 1, 2012 at 8:51 AM

That’s okay!
Everybody, just write off Rick Santy!

KOOLAID2 on February 1, 2012 at 8:51 AM

If either Newt or Santorum dropped out………the race would
be much closer than it appears on the surface. Liberal vs.
conservative.

Amjean on February 1, 2012 at 8:47 AM

You make the assumption that any non-Romney would automatically get all the votes from the other non-Romney’s. That, with all due respect, is flawed math. As I commented above, the results from Florida shows that those not thrilled with Romney are not necessarily happy with Newt as the leading alternative. Females in particular seem to have a problem with Gingrich.

Happy Nomad on February 1, 2012 at 8:52 AM

Has Romney just admitted what Democrats have said for years and what Republicans have denied for years: that Republicans don’t care about the poor?

How will that play with struggling middle-class voters?

JonBGood on February 1, 2012 at 8:52 AM

mitt victory will mean a good % of the conservative vote will stay at home in the general. there is little difference between mitt and obama and many dont care about the R before the president name.

nathor on February 1, 2012 at 8:52 AM

Talking heads on Twitter are saying he already has with this.

Flora Duh on February 1, 2012 at 8:43 AM

Eyeroll. It’s the middle class that’s being hit hard and squeezed out…he’s also no doubt aware that most people label themselves middle class, even if they’re not.

No doubt it’ll be pounced on by the same people who’ll play the class envy card, though. I expect Newt to be outrageously outraged anytime now.

changer1701 on February 1, 2012 at 8:52 AM

Its over, or that’d how Mittens would like you to believe.

angrymike on February 1, 2012 at 8:53 AM

And my vote will be for naught if she starts singing soon

We need to fix the primary system dang it

cmsinaz on February 1, 2012 at 8:53 AM

“I like firing people” and now “I don’t care about the very poor”

Oh, what a gem. He’s laughable.

Is it 6 inch red headlines on Huffington Post yet?

Marcus on February 1, 2012 at 8:54 AM

If Romney is the nominee, it will definitely be over for the US of A. Romney nomination = four more years of 0bozo.

And that will be the end of this nation.

Dominion on February 1, 2012 at 8:54 AM

Gingrich 32% + Santorum 13% equals 45%
(Note – Ron Paul 7%)

If either Newt or Santorum dropped out………the race would
be much closer than it appears on the surface. Liberal vs.
conservative.

Amjean on February 1, 2012 at 8:47 AM

The reason Santorum and Paul has 20% of the vote is because they like them. To assume they will jump to Newt if their guys aren’t in is stupid.

rich801 on February 1, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Not to defend Willard, but there aren’t any “very poor” in America, unless you think having an average “poor” household with two televisions, a cell phone, a computer, and at least one car counts as “very poor.” If you do, there are plenty of Third Worlders who would like to get some of that.

DRayRaven on February 1, 2012 at 8:55 AM

The fat lady ain’t singing, but she’ll be clearing her throat in four weeks if Romney doesn’t make a big mistake.

Mitt IS a big mistake!……but so is Newt…and Santy…

cartooner on February 1, 2012 at 8:55 AM

The trick is to destroy your opponent without getting your own hands dirty. Romney’s got that one down. Will he be as rough on Obama? Not likely.

RBMN on February 1, 2012 at 8:48 AM

He might try to be rough on Obama. The problem is that one reason he’s got so much momentum is the entire MSM and conservative media is currently backing him. He’s going to quickly become isolated once the MSM turns on him, much like what took place with McCain in 2008.

My advice to Romney would be that he needs to figure out how to reach out to conservatives. The panhandle went for Newt which shows that Romney has a real problem on his right flank. If he is the inevitable nominee, the time to start mending fences is now.

Happy Nomad on February 1, 2012 at 8:48 AM

He doesn’t want the conservative base and is trying to win by building a coalition of center-left voters and party line Republicans. If he is able to win without the base, he will be able to completely ignore conservatives and raise taxes, increase spending, appoint liberal judges to the Supreme Court, or enact whatever other leftist policies he’s interested in.

Make no mistake, the Republican Establishment wants no more Harriet Miers, no more opposition to amnesty, no more debt ceiling battles, and most importantly no more Tea Party.

Doomberg on February 1, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Why is Romney good now, but McCain beat him last time?

HopeHeFails on February 1, 2012 at 8:56 AM

If he is the inevitable nominee, the time to start mending fences is now.

Happy Nomad on February 1, 2012 at 8:48 AM

He passed the point of no return, already. Nothing could compel me to vote for mitt.

tinkerthinker on February 1, 2012 at 8:56 AM

liberal4life on February 1, 2012 at 8:51 AM

Libbie,

This is a Republican thing. You wouldn’t understand.

Why don’t you go off and worry about the campaign being waged by the jug-eared coward who you so admire? These primaries are no concern of yours. You might start by helping the SOB understand that when a wife and mother challenges you on visas for foreigners, you don’t respond by telling her that there is absolutely no reason why her husband has been unemployed for three years because he (the jug-eared coward) has a government report that says it simply isn’t posssible.

Happy Nomad on February 1, 2012 at 8:56 AM

We need to fix the primary system dang it

cmsinaz on February 1, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Good morning! I need to move to a state that counts!

JonBGood on February 1, 2012 at 8:56 AM

Yeah, he’s buying his way to the top. I loathed Romney in 2008 and he’s strengthened that feeling this go-around. The only consolation of a Romney candidacy is that when he loses to Obama, and he will lose, I won’t feel bad that it’s him losing. Just disgusted that the republicans screwed up yet again. And if the republicans stay true to character, they’re already grooming Jeb Bush as the 2016 nominee since he’s next in line.

mozalf on February 1, 2012 at 8:57 AM

He passed the point of no return, already. Nothing could compel me to vote for mitt.

tinkerthinker on February 1, 2012 at 8:56 AM

Got it. You are perfectly content with four more years of Obama because you can’t find a candidate ideologically pure enough for your conservative sensibilities.

Happy Nomad on February 1, 2012 at 8:57 AM

The conservative segment of the Republican party is split…but he RINO party lives on with Mitt…it’s that simple.
Add to that the shift of Mormon’s from conservative to “moderate” or liberal status, and you have an additional 5 or 6%…

right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 8:58 AM

Romney: “I’m Not Concerned About The Very Poor”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/01/romney_im_not_concerned_about_the_very_poor.html

liberal4life on February 1, 2012 at 8:51 AM

lobotomy4life Since it’s not your normal cartoon or comic book article…why don’t you tell us, what Mitt said.

KOOLAID2 on February 1, 2012 at 8:58 AM

Happy Nomad on February 1, 2012 at 8:56 AM

I don’t blame Willard. He hates poor people

liberal4life on February 1, 2012 at 8:58 AM

Not to defend Willard, but there aren’t any “very poor” in America, unless you think having an average “poor” household with two televisions, a cell phone, a computer, and at least one car counts as “very poor.” If you do, there are plenty of Third Worlders who would like to get some of that.

DRayRaven on February 1, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Huh? We’re not talking third world here…we have more people on food stamps than ever before and mitt doesn’t care.

tinkerthinker on February 1, 2012 at 9:00 AM

I’m not voting for the cucumber with obamalaise sammich. The talking obamalite robotic plastic man can’t be allowed to win. If he does, America is finished.

Key West Reader on February 1, 2012 at 9:00 AM

It also assumes Paul’s voters would flock to either Gingrich or Santorum, which seems laughably speculative at best.

Ron Paul supporters aren’t going anywhere, especially since the whole point of the Ron Paul campaign has been to garner enough delegates to exert influence on the drafting of the Republican platform, which presumably means the insertion of little gems decrying the ‘undue influence of the Zionist lobby on American foreign policy’, a demand for the protection of our precious bodily fluids, and an end, once and for all, to spider-goat DNA hybridization experiments.

troyriser_gopftw on February 1, 2012 at 9:01 AM

I’m sure I speak for all Floridians when I say we all appreciate the “vetting” that the great states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina did, and their winnowing of the field thereby making this critical election much easier for us all!

cartooner on February 1, 2012 at 9:02 AM

Make no mistake, the Republican Establishment wants no more Harriet Miers, no more opposition to amnesty, no more debt ceiling battles, and most importantly no more Tea Party.

Doomberg on February 1, 2012 at 8:55 AM

This…
A conservative is a threat to their power base…it won’t happen, unless Mitt completely implodes, and that is possible.

right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 9:02 AM

cucumber with obamalaise sammich

LOL! You have a way with words!

JonBGood on February 1, 2012 at 9:02 AM

I’ll still vote for Mitt over that disaster known as Barack Hussein Obama.

I will also keep digging the bunker deeper, keep prepping, and keep my options open. There’s a system correction coming, and I want to be on the right side when it happens.

Bishop on February 1, 2012 at 9:02 AM

Romney continues, “We will hear from the Democrat party, the plight of the poor…. You can focus on the very poor, that’s not my focus…. The middle income Americans, they’re the folks that are really struggling right now and they need someone that can help get this economy going for them.”

yikes

nathor on February 1, 2012 at 8:48 AM

This is a good thing. Isn’t a statement of this nature what you always wanted to hear from a Conservative? Why focus the universe around the food stamp collectors, the indigents, the illiterate? Focus on the people that actually work and pay taxes.

The poor are not the engines of this economy, so how would helping them fix anything?

antisense on February 1, 2012 at 9:02 AM

Got it. You are perfectly content with four more years of Obama because you can’t find a candidate ideologically pure enough for your conservative sensibilities.

Happy Nomad on February 1, 2012 at 8:57 AM

This is a ridiculous argument. You could argue that Gingrich or Christie are moderates since they have mixed records. But not voting for Romney is hardly a sign of “intolerance.” It is beyond logic to demand conservatives vote for a candidate whose governing record is indistinguishable from a fiscal liberal.

Doomberg on February 1, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Got it. You are perfectly content with four more years of Obama because you can’t find a candidate ideologically pure enough for your conservative sensibilities.

Happy Nomad on February 1, 2012 at 8:57 AM

So..?

tinkerthinker on February 1, 2012 at 9:03 AM

changer1701 on February 1, 2012 at 8:52 AM

Surprisingly the O’Brien twit gave him a chance to back away from it, instead, he doubled down.

We will hear from the Democrat party, the plight of the poor…. You can focus on the very poor, that’s not my focus…. The middle income Americans, they’re the folks that are really struggling right now and they need someone that can help get this economy going for them.”

If you don’t think the DNC is putting together an ad with the highlighted part of that statement right now, then you give them a heckuva lot more credit than I do.

Yes, Gingrich will probably use it. As the Romney camp would if Gingrich had said it.

Flora Duh on February 1, 2012 at 9:03 AM

If his handlers can keep Mitt away from impromptu remarks, and actually try to keep Mitt to the script…he may pull this one off…maybe.

But, each day he is all over the place, and if you are honest, he is doing what just about every politician has down to a practiced art form…pandering to whatever part of the electorate is standing in front of him at the time.

This will make it darned easy for the Obama to have him for lunch in the long run.

In a short sentence or two, what exactly is Romney “for?”

Yes, he is against Obama, it appears.

But what is Romney for? Specifically?

If Mitt cannot enunciate that simple message, that basic-most theme, his core beliefs…we are looking at four more years of Obama whose basic message is “screw the rich fat cats” and “gubmint will give ya ever’thang you’ll ever need.”

And that draws votes.

A sad state of affairs, to be sure.

coldwarrior on February 1, 2012 at 9:03 AM

I will also tell you his comments play well with middle class working people who feel everything is structured to benefit lazy free-loaders.

antisense on February 1, 2012 at 9:05 AM

Huh? We’re not talking third world here…we have more people on food stamps than ever before and mitt doesn’t care.

tinkerthinker on February 1, 2012 at 9:00 AM

I love going to the grocery store and buying whatever is on sale. I love standing behind the welfare queen (white) with her belly ring and tattoos; I adore her 3 kids wearing nothing but diapers & snot on their noses. I love momma welfare who somehow manages to buy angus steaks, shrimp, prepared deli delights, yummy fresh baked Cuban bread and real butter.

I love paying her food bill. I just do.

/

Key West Reader on February 1, 2012 at 9:05 AM

Mitt Romney 2012: I will not be food stamp President! I don’t care about the poor! ;-)

Here, have a fifty!

JonBGood on February 1, 2012 at 9:05 AM

Got it. You are perfectly content with four more years of Obama because you can’t find a candidate ideologically pure enough for your conservative sensibilities.

Happy Nomad on February 1, 2012 at 8:57 AM

OR: can’t see a significant difference

sloopy on February 1, 2012 at 9:05 AM

Amjean on February 1, 2012 at 8:47 AM

Plan on voting for Santorum. My vote goes to Romney if Santorum not in the race. You are a confused Gingrich supporter if you actually believe those who have settled on Santorum will move to 100% to Gingrich if Santorum drops out.

NotCoach on February 1, 2012 at 9:05 AM

Bishop on February 1, 2012 at 9:02 AM

+1

Oh, and FIRST!

Flora Duh on February 1, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Has Newt called Mitt to concede yet? And people wonder why he lost.

Philly on February 1, 2012 at 9:06 AM

If you don’t think the DNC is putting together an ad with the highlighted part of that statement right now, then you give them a heckuva lot more credit than I do.

Yes, Gingrich will probably use it.

Confirmed: Newt is DNC.

antisense on February 1, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Why do I get the feeling that conservatives are being sold out by the old line, politics-as-usual GOP powers-that-be forcing Romney on us as our (their) guy? They like Mitt; so does team Obama. I smell rodents…

ghostwalker1 on February 1, 2012 at 9:07 AM

Yay, America, a nation in full speed decline needs a cultist like Romney to be at the helm to ensure full destruction.

tom daschle concerned on February 1, 2012 at 9:07 AM

Huh? We’re not talking third world here…we have more people on food stamps than ever before and mitt doesn’t care.

tinkerthinker on February 1, 2012 at 9:00 AM

I’m simply saying that “poor” is a relative term. The “poor” in this country live like the pampered rich of most third world countries, food stamps or no. That’s part of the problem. If you’re used to living on food stamps, texting your friends on your smart phone while you watch your HDTV with your car parked outside, you have little motivation to go out and find a job.

DRayRaven on February 1, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Hey jgb

Folks, they are taking Mitts words out of context, the next sentences was the poor have a safety net,

cmsinaz on February 1, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Yeah, he’s buying his way to the top. I loathed Romney in 2008 and he’s strengthened that feeling this go-around. The only consolation of a Romney candidacy is that when he loses to Obama, and he will lose, I won’t feel bad that it’s him losing. Just disgusted that the republicans screwed up yet again. And if the republicans stay true to character, they’re already grooming Jeb Bush as the 2016 nominee since he’s next in line.

mozalf on February 1, 2012 at 8:57 AM

There is no consolation prize if he loses. This is what I do not understand…some of you are under the impression there is some moral victory to be gained if Obama wins, but there really isn’t.

changer1701 on February 1, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Has Romney just admitted what Democrats have said for years and what Republicans have denied for years: that Republicans don’t care about the poor?

How will that play with struggling middle-class voters?

JonBGood on February 1, 2012 at 8:52 AM

I don’t know how Mittens will play it, but I would tell the middle class that because Obama and the Dems love the poor so much, they’re trying to make more of them by making you poor. I on the other hand want to keep you where you are with every opportunity to move UP.

cartooner on February 1, 2012 at 9:08 AM

“I like firing people” and now “I don’t care about the very poor”

Oh, what a gem. He’s laughable.

Is it 6 inch red headlines on Huffington Post yet?

Marcus on February 1, 2012 at 8:54 AM

Good God. “I don’t care about the very poor”?! Seriously?! Don’t give me any of that taken out of context bullcrap. I know what Mittens was trying to say and I agree that the middle class in this country is who’s being squeezed the most by Obama’s policies.

But you NEVER EVER EVER EVER utter a line like that when you’re running for President of the United States! Particularly when you’re a rich white Republican going up against a (half)black incumbent who’s entire electoral strategery will be centered around class warfare and the race card.

Doughboy on February 1, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Sorry, but Mitt’s comments his quote is not a problem, he explained it by saying there is a “safety net” built into our system to help the poor, and when he explains this people will nod in approval…the people who will vote for him.
The “poor”, the welfare recipient with their hand out, won’t vote for any Republican, so it doesn’t matter, election wise what they think.
He will simply state that the poor have a safety net, but the middle class, the hardest hit, has had nothing but more burden thrown upon them…and that is where his votes will come from…and it is the truth.
No fan of Mitt, but what he said hopefully will be an “issue”, and he will win on that issue…at least win the votes he needs, and the votes that Obama needs and is losing.

right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Flora Duh on February 1, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Thief. When the collapse occurs there will be no room at Casa del Bunker for you.

Bishop on February 1, 2012 at 9:09 AM

But what is Romney for? Specifically?

If Mitt cannot enunciate that simple message, that basic-most theme, his core beliefs…we are looking at four more years of Obama whose basic message is “screw the rich fat cats” and “gubmint will give ya ever’thang you’ll ever need.”

And that draws votes.

A sad state of affairs, to be sure.

coldwarrior on February 1, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Romney is for Romney. He believes in the Romney that everyone should believe in. Romney believes that in a perfect Romney everyone is Romney.

/

Key West Reader on February 1, 2012 at 9:10 AM

Romney: “I’m Not Concerned About The Very Poor”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/01/romney_im_not_concerned_about_the_very_poor.html

liberal4life on February 1, 2012 at 8:51 AM

Neither should he be. Pandering to the very poor will do zero for job growth.

OldEnglish on February 1, 2012 at 9:10 AM

Why is Romney good now, but McCain beat him last time?

HopeHeFails on February 1, 2012 at 8:56 AM

Why was Reagan good, but got beat two or three times in previous primaries attempts at running for President?

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2012 at 9:11 AM

This is a good thing. Isn’t a statement of this nature what you always wanted to hear from a Conservative? Why focus the universe around the food stamp collectors, the indigents, the illiterate? Focus on the people that actually work and pay taxes.

The poor are not the engines of this economy, so how would helping them fix anything?

antisense on February 1, 2012 at 9:02 AM

you must be joking!? i think we should care about every body, including the poor. its our belief that if we lower taxes, business will thrive and more people will find work and more people will be lifted out of poverty. creating a system that offers no hope to our lowest class is horrible! and mitt just appeared to support that.

nathor on February 1, 2012 at 9:11 AM

That should be jbg

Sorry :(

cmsinaz on February 1, 2012 at 9:11 AM

But you NEVER EVER EVER EVER utter a line like that when you’re running for President of the United States! Particularly when you’re a rich white Republican going up against a (half)black incumbent who’s entire electoral strategery will be centered around class warfare and the race card.

Doughboy on February 1, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Willard Romney is Barack Obama’s running mate.

Key West Reader on February 1, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Romney isn’t for abortion. So why keep repeating that? He has changed his mind. Take him at his word. You Newt supporters take him at his word when he says he found religion and won’t cheat again.

Paddington on February 1, 2012 at 9:12 AM

The more RoOmney and his backers try to push him onto the Conservative Base, the worse their frustration is going to get.

Politics ain’t beanbag. And Romney’s assembled some veterans of the game..

kingsjester on February 1, 2012 at 9:12 AM

antisense on February 1, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Well aren’t you special?

I suppose using the Gingrich ethics saga is something the DNC would steer clear of.

Get over yourself. You know he stepped in it with that remark, and I know the more intellectually honest Romney supporters on HA will admit it.

Flora Duh on February 1, 2012 at 9:12 AM

If you don’t think the DNC is putting together an ad with the highlighted part of that statement right now, then you give them a heckuva lot more credit than I do.

Yes, Gingrich will probably use it. As the Romney camp would if Gingrich had said it.

Flora Duh on February 1, 2012 at 9:03 AM

I’m sure they are. So? Romney can pivot to the fact that more people are on food stamps than ever before, and make the argument that Obama doesn’t care about them because he’s not focused on growing the economy.

If unemployment remains high, gas prices skyrocket, and so forth, voters are going to blame the guy currently in power, not the one running to replace him.

changer1701 on February 1, 2012 at 9:12 AM

The problem is not just the moronic comments that Romney made today, which surely will be clipped to do the most damage. Rather is is, as Ben Domenech pointed out that the underlying assumption of the statement is that the safety net is doing just fine for the poor. It ain’t. Government is doing a horrid job at moving folks out of poverty and what’s more it continues to show that Mitt truely believes in a top-down, paternalistic government.

schmitty on February 1, 2012 at 9:13 AM

There is no consolation prize if he loses. This is what I do not understand…some of you are under the impression there is some moral victory to be gained if Obama wins, but there really isn’t.

changer1701 on February 1, 2012 at 9:08 AM

The goal of people talking like this is to force the Republican Party to permit a conservative to rise to the top of the primary process, not to switch control of the presidency from liberal A to liberal B.

Doomberg on February 1, 2012 at 9:13 AM

and mitt doesn’t care.

What you are worried about is that he is not pandering enough.

kunegetikos on February 1, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Cage match, its the only way. Nutball Romney supporters versus nutball Romney haters.

Us normal people can watch. With popcorn.

cozmo on February 1, 2012 at 9:13 AM

It’s funny that Ed mentioned Romney stumbling…

Lord of the Wings on February 1, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Bishop
Don’t forget to stock the alcohol in that bunker!

angrymike on February 1, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Why was Reagan good, but got beat two or three times in previous primaries attempts at running for President?

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2012 at 9:11 AM

Reagan was a conservative whose time had to come…Mitt is a liberal whose time has come?
If Mitt had ideas that were revolutionary, that were fighting the status quo, than the comparison would be valid…but he isn’t, he is just another one of the long line of RINO’s.

right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 9:14 AM

kingsjester on February 1, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Awesome, fill your advisory group with all the successful people that put McCain in the White House.

Bishop on February 1, 2012 at 9:14 AM

Tingles and the of the msdnc will focus on the out of context verbiage ad nausem today

cmsinaz on February 1, 2012 at 9:14 AM

46 states from over, and then it still isn’t over.

Fletch54 on February 1, 2012 at 9:14 AM

Even if one of them dropped out, though, that wouldn’t mean that the entire non-Romney vote would coalesce behind the survivor.

Exactly right. There are plenty of Santorum voters who (like myself) just don’t trust anything about Newt. Anything. I’m not an anyone-but-Romney guy. I’m an anyone-but-Newt guy. And I don’t think I’m the only one.

rogaineguy on February 1, 2012 at 9:14 AM

I don’t give a crap who the nominee is as long as I have somebody to vote for to remove Obama out of office! Geesh people, get over it and focus. If you are a tea partier like myself you need to realize we affect change from the bottom up. We need to cultivate our candidates at the congressional and senate levels. Anyone who thinks a fully conservative tea party candidate is going to win the Presidential seat is just truly naive. Most of America is center, therefore a moderate is going to win this thing. I don’t understand how you don’t see that. Long term strategy, quit thinking short term.

gator70 on February 1, 2012 at 9:14 AM

a conservative

Who? Stop the conspiracy talk and say who?

kunegetikos on February 1, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Beat down.

Time to turn the cross-hairs on the donkey.

NoDonkey on February 1, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Romney has a grand total of 84 delegates now, putting him far into the lead but 1,060 delegates shy of a majority, too.

Let’s not pretend that the primary process as it exists makes this relevant. No one counted delegates before the ’08 Dem race, and that one was only because of the insane power of the superdelegates on their side.

Red Cloud on February 1, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Yes, Gingrich will probably use it. As the Romney camp would if Gingrich had said it.

Flora Duh on February 1, 2012 at 9:03 AM

And yet Gingrich is now fading fast because he has demonstrated he has no credibility with his populist attacks. The Romney “mistake” is nothing. People like retard4life get tingles from it, but people like retard4life have already sold their souls to Satan. Most Americans not pining for a sloppy kiss from Obama aren’t going to care about a comment that makes the point that more welfare will not solve the “poor” problem.

NotCoach on February 1, 2012 at 9:15 AM

the Republican Establishment wants no more Harriet Miers, no more opposition to amnesty, no more debt ceiling battles, and most importantly no more Tea Party.

Doomberg on February 1, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Harriet Miers is a True Conservative? Snort. Her nomination was scuttled by conservatives, not establishment folks, because they saw her for what she was: an unqualified Bush crony.

KingGold on February 1, 2012 at 9:15 AM

But what is Romney for? Specifically?

coldwarrior on February 1, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Romney is for anything he believes the majority of voters wants him to be for. He will change his principles on a dime if it helps him politically.

I mean, c’mon…seriously: how many of us changed our fundamental beliefs on things like immigration, abortion, and gay marriage in our fifties? There may be a few here and there, but not many…and even if we did, it didn’t conveniently coincide with our trying to appeal to a different electorate for another political office. Romney is a self-promoter and a liar.

Bottom line? Romney is for Romney. Full stop.

DRayRaven on February 1, 2012 at 9:15 AM

angrymike on February 1, 2012 at 9:13 AM

I’m in consultations with Scotland to build a tunnel between their Islay region and my bunker so that the scotch can flow freely.

Bishop on February 1, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Sorry, but Mitt’s comments his quote is not a problem, he explained it by saying there is a “safety net” built into our system to help the poor, and when he explains this people will nod in approval…the people who will vote for him.
The “poor”, the welfare recipient with their hand out, won’t vote for any Republican, so it doesn’t matter, election wise what they think.
He will simply state that the poor have a safety net, but the middle class, the hardest hit, has had nothing but more burden thrown upon them…and that is where his votes will come from…and it is the truth.
No fan of Mitt, but what he said hopefully will be an “issue”, and he will win on that issue…at least win the votes he needs, and the votes that Obama needs and is losing.

right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 9:08 AM

that poor people on welfare would not vote for him its a given, but middle class will see this remark as insensitive which will not contribute to his likability and it will energize the poor(read 8% unemployed) to vote for obama.
disaster!

nathor on February 1, 2012 at 9:16 AM

All is proceeding as I have foreseen.

Foxhound on February 1, 2012 at 9:16 AM

No doubt it’ll be pounced on by the same people who’ll play the class envy card, though. I expect Newt to be outrageously outraged anytime now.

changer1701 on February 1, 2012 at 8:52 AM

I’ll SEE your anti-Mormon card and raise you class envy- LOL

Night Owl on February 1, 2012 at 9:16 AM

I hear Willard likes to fire people too.

Yup, HATES THE POOR AND LIKES TO FIRE PEOPLE.. a winning strategy for sure.

stenwin77 on February 1, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Bishop on February 1, 2012 at 9:14 AM

Yep. I thought Mitt was supposed to be an “Outsider”? a “Business Man”, etc.?

kingsjester on February 1, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Willard Romney is the equivalent of John Kerry.

He’s the DNC’s payback for 2004.

Key West Reader on February 1, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Has Newt called Mitt to concede yet? And people wonder why he lost.

Philly on February 1, 2012 at 9:06 AM

As far as I know none of them did.

Did mitt congratulate newt in SC?

tinkerthinker on February 1, 2012 at 9:18 AM

If you don’t think the DNC is putting together an ad with the highlighted part

Well Reagan and Bush already took half the country off the tax rolls to sell out the country for high-end tax cuts. You didn’t whine about that.

You want Mitt to propose new war-on-poverty programs? Or you think he is going to lose the vote of Dem central?

kunegetikos on February 1, 2012 at 9:18 AM

I will also tell you his comments play well with middle class working people who feel everything is structured to benefit lazy free-loaders.

antisense on February 1, 2012 at 9:05 AM

That’s rather harsh. I don’t think that everyone on Food Stamps right now is a free loader. Times have been tough for many middle-class families. Some good families have been on the unlucky side of this economy and have lost their jobs and are having a tough time finding a new job.

Our Church is meeting so many unmet needs of struggling middle-class families and lower income families. These families are embarrassed that they are even in a situation where they need assistance. Many of them waited until they couldn’t wait any longer. Many of them cry when they admit they need help.

I think that this statement by Romney is insensitive and shows a fundamental disconnect from what is happening in the real economy.

JonBGood on February 1, 2012 at 9:18 AM

It’s funny that Ed mentioned Romney stumbling…

Lord of the Wings on February 1, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Heh. Gaffes have driven “lesser” candidates out of the race, but money can solve any problem…?

If he’s going to be the guy, could he at least not conform to every stereotype about him?

ElectricPhase on February 1, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Romney isn’t for abortion. So why keep repeating that? He has changed his mind. Take him at his word. You Newt supporters take him at his word when he says he found religion and won’t cheat again.

Paddington on February 1, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Because when he was in power, he had the podium to actually do something, even a little something, he chose the opposite and embraced abortion.
Now that he has just words, and is running in a campaign, why do you take him at his word? What proof do you have that he means it? The proof you have, the definite proof, is when he had a chance, he did nothing, worse he did something, he did more to promote it.
Funny, the irony, him from a faith that “works” mean more or as much as faith…his “works” show him as an abortion advocate. That is how he should be judged, by his own standards.

right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 9:18 AM

If either Newt or Santorum dropped out………the race would
be much closer than it appears on the surface. Liberal vs.
conservative.

Amjean on February 1, 2012 at 8:47 AM

You make the assumption that any non-Romney would automatically get all the votes from the other non-Romney’s. That, with all due respect, is flawed math. As I commented above, the results from Florida shows that those not thrilled with Romney are not necessarily happy with Newt as the leading alternative. Females in particular seem to have a problem with Gingrich.

Happy Nomad on February 1, 2012 at 8:52 A

You are making the ASSumption that they would not.

I believe that a great percentage of those who voted for Gingrich or Santorum would not vote for Romney. Again, it is
conservative vs. liberal.

Amjean on February 1, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4