Could this be Santorum’s big day?

posted at 9:50 am on February 7, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Today, for the first time this cycle, multiple states hold their Republican presidential nomination contests on one day, two caucuses (Colorado and Minnesota) and one primary (Missouri).  They all have two things in common.  First, none of them are binding, so no delegates will be formally assigned from the vote.  Second, they all represent Rick Santorum’s best shot at changing the trajectory of this race and positioning himself as the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney.  One final series of snap polls from PPP shows Santorum with a double-digit lead in Missouri, and nearly as much of a lead in Minnesota:

Rick Santorum could be headed for a big day in today’s contests in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri. Missouri looks like a probable win for Santorum. He’s at 45% there to 32% for Mitt Romney and 19% for Paul. Minnesota provides an opportunity for a win as well. Currently he has a small advantage with 33% to 24% for Romney, 22% for Newt Gingrich, and 20% for Ron Paul. And Santorum should get a second place finish in Colorado, where Romney appears to be the likely winner. The standings there are Romney at 37%, Santorum at 27%, Gingrich at 21%, and Paul at 13%.

Missouri is the big test.  Gingrich chose not to make the ballot in Missouri (a more deliberate choice than the failure of Gingrich and Santorum in Virginia), so this is the dry run of Santorum vs Romney and Paul.  If he does win big in the Show Me State, it gives Santorum an argument for his strength as a conservative candidate more likely to beat Romney in future contests than Gingrich.  A win in Minnesota, where Romney won in 2008, would bolster that argument even more, but a low turnout is expected in Minnesota.  That makes predictions through polling difficult, although a nine-point lead in a widely-split field is better than no lead at all.

For Gingrich, the key is to beat Santorum in the two states in which he’s competing.  The results in Missouri are not terribly relevant to Gingrich, and expect his campaign to spin a Santorum win as an indictment of Romney rather than a boost for Santorum, and they wouldn’t be entirely wrong, either.  Falling to third in either would raise questions about his momentum; falling out of second place in both would be a huge problem for perception of the Gingrich campaign.  In Minnesota, Gingrich is in a virtual tie for second place with Romney and Ron Paul, with just four points separating the three candidates.  In Colorado, Gingrich is six points back of Santorum for second place in the PPP poll, but leads slightly as the second-place choice over Santorum, 25/23.

Gingrich could score a big PR coup by pushing Romney into third place in Minnesota, or he could end up in third or even fourth place himself.  He’s also tied for second in the second-place choice question with Romney at 20% in Minnesota, with Santorum leading with 25% and Paul far behind at 10%.  Based on those numbers, it looks like Santorum has a chance to win it, and Romney and Gingrich will be fighting it out for second place.  In that case, look for the better organization to carry the day, and that won’t be good news for Gingrich.  In Colorado, there is no chance of pushing Romney into third place, but Gingrich could beat Santorum for second.  He has a slight edge in electability over Santorum in both states (+7 in CO, +6 in MN), and in Colorado that might be enough to get last-minute deciders to break his way and push him into second.

On the other hand, last-minute deciders might base their decision on instinct rather than stats, and that would not be good news for Gingrich.  In both states, Gingrich is barely above water on favorability (+8 in CO, +7 in MN), though, while Santorum leads the field substantially (+52 in CO, +57 in MN), with Romney in second (+28 in CO, +7 in MN, tied with Gingrich).  That combined with the other disadvantages of the Gingrich campaign, plus the interesting strategic decision over the last two days to focus on Santorum, may have undercut Gingrich’s stature enough to send him into an across-the-board retreat.  If so, Gingrich had either hope for a miracle in the February 22nd debate.  If Santorum comes in third in both Minnesota and Colorado while winning Missouri, it won’t be as dire, but he would lose the argument over his ability to outperform Gingrich in the center of the country, and the Not-Romney stalemate would continue.  And you know who that helps ….


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

Happy voting, GG!
Go Santorum.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 7, 2012 at 9:59 AM

She said in the headline Perry thread that she’s not going to vote today.

I wish Senator Santorum the best of luck. I sincerely mean that.

Flora Duh on February 7, 2012 at 10:34 AM

I live in TX-so it’s not like my vote’s going to matter in the primaries anyway.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 7, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Morning ALT, this is howI feel, actually its kind of easier to make peace with not voting, when you really know it won’t matter.
MT -Primary June, General – they always announce winner before our polls even close.

MontanaMmmm on February 7, 2012 at 10:35 AM

We need a candidate with Gingrich’s brain and Santorum’s moral character.

Steve Z on February 7, 2012 at 10:05 AM

So you want someone who’ll ban contraceptives on the moon?

EddieC on February 7, 2012 at 10:35 AM

So you want someone who’ll ban contraceptives on the moon?

EddieC on February 7, 2012 at 10:35 AM

*chortle*

The War Planner on February 7, 2012 at 10:37 AM

We need a candidate with Gingrich’s brain and Santorum’s moral character.

Steve Z on February 7, 2012 at 10:05 AM

So you want someone who’ll ban contraceptives on the moon?

EddieC on February 7, 2012 at 10:35 AM

WisRich on February 7, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Electing a Union brown noser like Santorum, during a time when conservative governors like Walker are in a life and death struggle with the unions, would be nothing short of suicide for the right to work movement.

Santorum is a conservative, my a$$. Shoving his nose into peoples private life is not conservatism!!

xxessw on February 7, 2012 at 10:39 AM

We need a candidate with Gingrich’s brain and Santorum’s moral character.

Steve Z on February 7, 2012 at 10:05 AM

So you want someone who’ll ban contraceptives on the moon?

EddieC on February 7, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Okay, that made me laugh.

WisRich on February 7, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Massachusetts resident here – have NO idea what people see in Romney.

Just Sayin on February 7, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Massachusetts resident here too. I see a lot more auto insurance competition since Romney. Maybe the insurance reform started before Romney but I started seeing the difference during Romney’s term. Before that, Mass rates were astronomically high. I couldn’t believe it when I first moved to Mass (during the Dukaka days).

rhombus on February 7, 2012 at 10:41 AM

It’s true that Santorum’s got his share of heresies. But of the candidates who remain, he’s the strongest conservative of the bunch.

KingGold on February 7, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Newt has done more for conservativism than all the others put together. Everybody else is just talk. However, if “conservative” equals “theocrat” then Santorum is your man. IMO a vote for Santorum is a vote for Romney.

Kaffa on February 7, 2012 at 10:43 AM

The War Planner on February 7, 2012 at 10:33 AM

First, he would have to admit that the concept of a government-run healthcare system is a socialist concept. And, admit that Romneycare was the precursor for Obamacare.

Because during his reign as governor, little things like this happened:

In December 2005, Romney required all Massachusetts hospitals, including Catholic ones, to provide emergency contraception to rape victims, even though some Catholics view the morning-after pill as a form of abortion.

He said he was acting on his legal counsel’s interpretation of a new state law – one passed by lawmakers despite his veto – but he also said that “in his heart of hearts,’’ he believed that rape victims should have access to emergency contraception.

Some Catholic leaders now point to inconsistency in Romney’s criticism of the president and characterize his new stance as politically expedient, even as they welcome it.

kingsjester on February 7, 2012 at 10:44 AM

I have no idea how many bills he sponsored when in House or Senate that are conservative? I really would appreciate an answer.

evergreenland on February 7, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Massachusetts resident here too. I see a lot more auto insurance competition since Romney. Maybe the insurance reform started before Romney but I started seeing the difference during Romney’s term. Before that, Mass rates were astronomically high. I couldn’t believe it when I first moved to Mass (during the Dukaka days).

rhombus on February 7, 2012 at 10:41 AM

I know your giving example of Romney as a Massachusetts reformer, but auto insurance?
Not exactly one of our most pressing problems of the day.
Medicare, medicade… now you would be talkin.

MontanaMmmm on February 7, 2012 at 10:46 AM

I know your giving example of Romney as a Massachusetts reformer, but auto insurance?

MontanaMmmm on February 7, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Its exactly the kind of thing to mention.

Like Giuliani with the graffiti and Reagan kick starting the economy, you have to start somewhere.

And changing any insurance regulations to lower rates is a pretty big thing that the average Joe notices.

cozmo on February 7, 2012 at 10:50 AM

I’m fine with a Santorum surge, if it comes down to Mitt and Rick I see it being a debate about ideas and policies instead of a mud wrestling match like it was with Newt.

BradTank on February 7, 2012 at 10:50 AM

..serious question here, K.J., asked the other day on another thread: what would it take from Romney in terms of disavowing RomneyCare or his attitude towards health care policy to get you or others to reconsider his candidacy?

The War Planner on February 7, 2012 at 10:33 AM

I’m not my neighbor, Mr. Jester, but for me there is nothing he could now say or do; it’s far too late. Prior to the campaign he should have denounced RomneyCare with no ambiguity. Instead he insulted our intelligence and claimed his tyranny was “conservative.”

Even if I could live with him on health care, and if I believed his late-life conversion on life (post-pro-life conversion he said it was “right” to force Catholics hospitals to dispense morning-after abortion pills), and if I ignored his gay pandering, and if I forgave him for claiming that coal plants kill people, I could never get past his record on firearms. I believe if he thought it would be to his political advantage at the moment, he would sign the first “sensible gun control” bill to cross his desk.

All of that and a weak tax plan to boot.

flyfisher on February 7, 2012 at 10:53 AM

I know your giving example of Romney as a Massachusetts reformer, but auto insurance?
Not exactly one of our most pressing problems of the day.
Medicare, medicade… now you would be talkin.

MontanaMmmm on February 7, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Well I was making the point to someone who said they were from Mass and had actually lived in Mass during Romney’s term. As for insurance reform… you don’t have health insurance that is in need of reform? Regardless, just for giggles I would like to see what some of the so-called “true” or “real” conservatives would have done with a Marxist legislature (think Elizabeth Warren and you have a pretty good idea). Like Romney pointed out, being a conservative governor in oil-rich Texas is not exactly challenging.

rhombus on February 7, 2012 at 10:54 AM

cozmo on February 7, 2012 at 10:50 AM

I see your point.

swamp yankee are you still here?
I want to apologize for yesterday…

MontanaMmmm on February 7, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Massachusetts resident here too. I see a lot more auto insurance competition since Romney. Maybe the insurance reform started before Romney but I started seeing the difference during Romney’s term. Before that, Mass rates were astronomically high. I couldn’t believe it when I first moved to Mass (during the Dukaka days).

rhombus on February 7, 2012 at 10:41 AM

If I remember correctly, deregulation of the auto insurance market happened in 2008 – under Patrick, not Romney. But I guess you could say that Romney got the ball rolling by appointing a bi-partisan commission to study the issue. His insurance commissioner worked pretty hard on it, but it didn’t go anywhere until after he was out of office.

What he can take credit for – and why you probably saw some differences in rates – was pushing for changes to the formula for how high-risk drivers were allocated across insurers, to distribute the cost more equitably. I think that had a huge impact on rates.

Just Sayin on February 7, 2012 at 10:55 AM

I have no idea how many bills he sponsored when in House or Senate that are conservative? I really would appreciate an answer.

evergreenland on February 7, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Here’s the link to his Presidential White Papers from Club for Growth.

This is something I hadn’t noticed before.

Santorum Voted to Subsidize Abortion, Planned Parenthood

Flora Duh on February 7, 2012 at 10:57 AM

We need a candidate with Gingrich’s brain and Santorum’s moral character.

Steve Z on February 7, 2012 at 10:05 AM

So you want someone who’ll ban contraceptives on the moon?

EddieC on February 7, 2012 at 10:35 AM

That would be funny if Santorum ever said he wants to ban contraception. It’s not surprising when Republicans get Palinized from the left. It is when so-called conservatives do it too.

angryed on February 7, 2012 at 10:58 AM

And, admit that Romneycare was the precursor for Obamacare.
kingsjester on February 7, 2012 at 10:44 AM

.
Does that make Medicare the precursor for Romneycare then??

FlaMurph on February 7, 2012 at 10:58 AM

If I remember correctly, deregulation of the auto insurance market happened in 2008 – under Patrick, not Romney. But I guess you could say that Romney got the ball rolling by appointing a bi-partisan commission to study the issue. His insurance commissioner worked pretty hard on it, but it didn’t go anywhere until after he was out of office.

What he can take credit for – and why you probably saw some differences in rates – was pushing for changes to the formula for how high-risk drivers were allocated across insurers, to distribute the cost more equitably. I think that had a huge impact on rates.

Just Sayin on February 7, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Somebody cracked down on fraud in a huge way too. I seriously doubt it was Patrick as he constantly shields Lantigua which is just another word for fraud.

rhombus on February 7, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Unfortunately for Newt, he’s his own worst enemy. Every time he opens his mouth I either love him or hate him. With Santorum and Romney, it comes down to dissecting who has the best track record and who has the policies and plan to move this country forward. If he could get some wins and gain momentum, there are many voters that would like to get behind Santorum.

HoosierStateofMind on February 7, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Annoy Meghan McCain and Ann Coulter – vote Santorum!!

mozalf on February 7, 2012 at 11:01 AM

I would like to see what some of the so-called “true” or “real” conservatives would have done with a Marxist legislature (think Elizabeth Warren and you have a pretty good idea). Like Romney pointed out, being a conservative governor in oil-rich Texas is not exactly challenging.

rhombus on February 7, 2012 at 10:54 AM

This is such BS. The previous 3 governors in MA were also Republicans with the same Dem legislature. And none of them created Romney-care.

angryed on February 7, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Just about 10 hours until the Colorado Caucus starts. Looking forward to casting my vote for Santorum.

It might be the only presidential vote I cast this year. If Romney is the nominee, I am staying home.

Norwegian on February 7, 2012 at 11:02 AM

MontanaMmmm on February 7, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Oh, great…now I’m gonna’ get grouped with csdeven and bluegills and sheryl and petunia and…

cozmo on February 7, 2012 at 11:02 AM

A double digit win for Rick, if Mitt was a patriot, he would ask to be Rick’s VP…

right2bright on February 7, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Ooooohhh nnnoooooo….

timberline on February 7, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Oh, great…now I’m gonna’ get grouped with csdeven and bluegills and sheryl and petunia and…

cozmo on February 7, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Don’t forget BettyRuth and Joana and Haner

/

flyfisher on February 7, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Flora Duh on February 7, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Thank you , appreciate it.

evergreenland on February 7, 2012 at 11:05 AM

..serious question here, K.J., asked the other day on another thread: what would it take from Romney in terms of disavowing RomneyCare or his attitude towards health care policy to get you or others to reconsider his candidacy?

The War Planner on February 7, 2012 at 10:33 AM

I answered that already on the other thread. I even gave Mitt the words to say, and the documents to hold up during the news conference. And I’m pretty sure I didn’t even get a single comment on it.

dominigan on February 7, 2012 at 11:05 AM

..what an absolutely idiotic statement. Do you drive while using that brain?

The War Planner on February 7, 2012 at 10:30 AM

So you don’t think that carrying 95%+ of the Mormon vote is a significant voting bloc? Really?
Do you post while using that brain?

right2bright on February 7, 2012 at 11:06 AM

rhombus on February 7, 2012 at 10:54 AM

I just acknowledged the point to cozmo, aren’t we all getting tired of the “true conservative” stuff. I’m trying to get to policy matters. Sure I think health insurance reform is needed, doesn’t make me feel that a State or Fed Govt should be able to make me buy it as a condition of breathing. I have asked many as to why would he want to govern in such a state. I know the answer I’m most given is that he wanted to battle those forces.

I can see having to compromise on some things, but as in the pro-choice question I personally couldn’t compromise on such a core issue no matter what state I was governing in. I guess it’s good I’m not a politician.

MontanaMmmm on February 7, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Don’t forget BettyRuth and Joana and Haner

/

flyfisher on February 7, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Haner got banned for being a little too overzealous with his Romney love.

angryed on February 7, 2012 at 11:07 AM

kingsjester on February 7, 2012 at 10:44 AM

flyfisher on February 7, 2012 at 10:53 AM

..fair answers, gentlemen. Thanks. I was genuinely curious.

The War Planner on February 7, 2012 at 11:07 AM

..what an absolutely idiotic statement. Do you drive while using that brain?

The War Planner on February 7, 2012 at 10:30 AM

So you don’t think that carrying 95%+ of the Mormon vote is a significant voting bloc? Really?
Do you post while using that brain?

right2bright on February 7, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Facts and figures don’t mean anything to a Mittbot. He’s electable. End of story. Got it?

angryed on February 7, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Somebody cracked down on fraud in a huge way too. I seriously doubt it was Patrick as he constantly shields Lantigua which is just another word for fraud.

rhombus on February 7, 2012 at 11:00 AM

What in heaven’s name does Willie Lantigua have to do with Romney’s record as governor?

Just Sayin on February 7, 2012 at 11:08 AM

flyfisher on February 7, 2012 at 11:05 AM

haner is gone. Now I don’t have the problem of telling him and horace apart.

cozmo on February 7, 2012 at 11:08 AM

It might be the only presidential vote I cast this year. If Romney is the nominee, I am staying home.

Norwegian on February 7, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Colorado won’t have any down-ticket races on the ballot in November?

Flora Duh on February 7, 2012 at 11:09 AM

In Utah, Huntsman instituted health care reform. It required no mandate. It required no new huge bureaucracy. It was almost entirely a free market based refrom.

It can be done. This notion that we only have two options – do nothing or create Obamneycare – is idiotic and plays right into the hands of liberals who always look to the govt to solve every problem on earth.

angryed on February 7, 2012 at 11:10 AM

MontanaMmmm on February 7, 2012 at 10:55 AM
Oh, great…now I’m gonna’ get grouped with csdeven and bluegills and sheryl and petunia and…

cozmo on February 7, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Nope, I think I know where your at…but Jailbreak maybe/lol

MontanaMmmm on February 7, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Nothing that happens tonight will change the trajectory of the primaries. They are all irrelevant BEAUTY CONTEST that Santorum is using to justify sticking around until Super Tuesday. Newt is not spending any money on either caucus so no big deal.

The event that will matter this week is Sarah Palin speech at CPAC. IF she is still pushing Newt, there is nothing Santorum can do tonight to give him the edge over Newt going forward.

Let’s face it: Newt will do better than Rick on super Tuesday based on the states in play…Especially Georgia who ha sthe most delegates to offer.

Let Santorum win all the beauty contest and show ZERO delegate for it Wedneday morning…

jules on February 7, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Haner got banned for being a little too overzealous with his Romney love.

angryed on February 7, 2012 at 11:07 AM

It wasn’t his Romneylove that got it him the boot. It was his nutball hatin’ on the not-Romney’s.

cozmo on February 7, 2012 at 11:11 AM

It might be the only presidential vote I cast this year. If Romney is the nominee, I am staying home.

Norwegian on February 7, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Colorado won’t have any down-ticket races on the ballot in November?

Flora Duh on February 7, 2012 at 11:09 AM

I think in general when people say “I’m staying home” they mean it figuratively speaking when it comes to leaving blank the presidential ballot. I am “staying home” if Romney is the nominee, but I will vote for most other races. And besides I always “stay home” since I vote absentee every election.

angryed on February 7, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Haner got banned for being a little too overzealous with his Romney love.

angryed on February 7, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Oh I know. I was reading that thread realitime when that vile little troll was finally shown the door.

flyfisher on February 7, 2012 at 11:12 AM

…but Jailbreak maybe/lol

MontanaMmmm on February 7, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Ouch, that left a mark.

cozmo on February 7, 2012 at 11:13 AM

I have no idea how many bills he sponsored when in House or Senate that are conservative? I really would appreciate an answer.

evergreenland on February 7, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Here’s the link to his Presidential White Papers from Club for Growth.

This is something I hadn’t noticed before.

Santorum Voted to Subsidize Abortion, Planned Parenthood

Flora Duh on February 7, 2012 at 10:57 AM

I think it will be helpful to repost this , so everyone is informed.
Thank you again Flora Duh

evergreenland on February 7, 2012 at 11:13 AM

I think in general when people say “I’m staying home” they mean it figuratively speaking when it comes to leaving blank the presidential ballot. I am “staying home” if Romney is the nominee, but I will vote for most other races. And besides I always “stay home” since I vote absentee every election.

angryed on February 7, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Whew! Thanks for the clarification. No matter who the nominee is we have to do everything possible to keep the House and add to the Senate.

Flora Duh on February 7, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Thank you again Flora Duh

evergreenland on February 7, 2012 at 11:13 AM

You’re welcome.

Flora Duh on February 7, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Since the same person wrote both Obamacare and Romcare, the latter first, one could say Mittens was the author of the health insurance mandate. Since min wage destroys jobs, how is Romney the genius on job creation when he tries to cover a stupid unforced error with the need to raise min wage ? Only a Lib does that.

democratsarefools on February 7, 2012 at 11:18 AM

It is dangerous for the GOP to nominate anyone who has served in Congress, because the MSM will pick his voting record to death. Given the breadth of procedural crap they vote on, anything can be twisted to define and distort.

Go Romney.

matthew8787 on February 7, 2012 at 11:18 AM

So you don’t think that carrying 95%+ of the Mormon vote is a significant voting bloc? Really?
Do you post while using that brain?

right2bright on February 7, 2012 at 11:06 AM

..re-examine your original statement:

He has loyal followers, but most all of them are from his faith.

To me, your language implies that most of Romney’s support derives from Mormons. According to Wikipedia (emphasis added):

Mormon Population
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has over 14 million members, with more than half of those members living outside the United States. Wards (the name for a congregation) and branches (similar to wards but smaller) of the Church can be found in 162 countries. Countries with the highest percentage of LDS members are the United States, the countries of Latin America, the Philippines, Canada, England, American Samoa, Tonga, and Western Samoa. The Church has minimal presence in China (though it does have fairly good population in Hong Kong as well as a temple there), the Middle-East, and Cuba. The Church is growing fastest in Africa, Latin America, and east Asia.

Within the United States in Utah about sixty percent of the population are members. That puts the state population of Saints at just over 1.5 million members. In Idaho, fourteen percent of the population are LDS; in Nevada, nine percent; Arizona, six percent; Oregon, four percent; and the rest of the states are at about three percent.

I am not disputing that a large number of Mormons support Romney, but I am disputing your inference that most of his support comes from Mormons. And, yes, I do post with this brain.

The War Planner on February 7, 2012 at 11:19 AM

..what an absolutely idiotic statement. Do you drive while using that brain?

The War Planner on February 7, 2012 at 10:30 AM
So you don’t think that carrying 95%+ of the Mormon vote is a significant voting bloc? Really?
Do you post while using that brain?

right2bright on February 7, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Hilarious stuff! You’re really on a roll today, “right2bright”!!

Hee hee hee hee!!!!!!

jfs756 on February 7, 2012 at 11:22 AM

I just acknowledged the point to cozmo, aren’t we all getting tired of the “true conservative” stuff. I’m trying to get to policy matters. Sure I think health insurance reform is needed, doesn’t make me feel that a State or Fed Govt should be able to make me buy it as a condition of breathing. I have asked many as to why would he want to govern in such a state. I know the answer I’m most given is that he wanted to battle those forces.

I can see having to compromise on some things, but as in the pro-choice question I personally couldn’t compromise on such a core issue no matter what state I was governing in. I guess it’s good I’m not a politician.

MontanaMmmm on February 7, 2012 at 11:06 AM

First, I think Romney was more interested in running for President than being Governor of Massachusetts so I’m not going to tell you that he wanted to battle any particular forces. Why did he take on the Olympics? Maybe the same reason but I really don’t care.

I don’t like being compelled to buy insurance either even though at one time THAT was the conservative personal responsibility view. But you do support State’s Rights don’t you? Is anyone running for President saying that Massachusetts had no right to do what they did? I don’t like what they did but will defend to the death their right as a State to do it. The Feds? They have no right (IMHO) and this should be left to the States as per the 10th Amendment.

As for the Pro-Choice thing with Romney, I really do believe he had a change of heart/opinion because so many people actually do in the real world. Converts is a good thing. Yeah sure, we can doubt whether converts are truly converted but we really should encourage MORE people to come around rather than smear them over a past they can’t change. Being able to change one’s mind is a plus in my book. Besides, President’s are never pure. For example, who would have predicted Dubya would have done so much “nation building” after running against it? For better or worse, things happened and he changed his mind.

rhombus on February 7, 2012 at 11:23 AM

rhombus on February 7, 2012 at 10:41 AM

and

Just Sayin on February 7, 2012 at 10:29 AM

So what is stopping you from changing the law in Mass? Hmm? Why I bet you have a crack legislative branch and Governor that would gladly repeal that puppy? Right? Or perhaps Romney should have just vetoed the original legislation, that would have solved the whole problem, for you? Huh?

Do tell please about the wonderful legislative branch you have up there, they surely could have stopped this mess of a legislation or fix it, right? Why have you not changed the state law? Seems really simple to me?

uhangtight on February 7, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Facts and figures don’t mean anything to a Mittbot. He’s electable. End of story. Got it?

angryed on February 7, 2012 at 11:08 AM

..a little harsh this morning, ed. See my response to Rigth2NotTooBright. By the way, I am NOT a Mittbot. That implies blind, unMITTigated obeisance. I will cop to serious and possibly terminal ABO which means I WILL vote for the GOP nominee whomever he may be.

One good takeaway from this morning’s discourse is the fact that you will leave the POTUS vote alone — i.e., NOT vote for Obama. That IS more consistent with your previous positions. Thanks for that at least.

The War Planner on February 7, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Norwegian on February 7, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Don’t stay home there are congressional and state house offices that need your vote. If you can’t pull the pin for Romney you still can pull the pin for others at running for lower level offices. I’m still very ambivalent about Romney but would go vote for others even if I leave the Presidential portion blank.

chemman on February 7, 2012 at 11:28 AM

What exactly is the point in non-binding caucuses and primaries – especially after other states have already held delegate binding contests? The primary process needs to be overhauled and could use some more transparency.

LtBarnwell02 on February 7, 2012 at 11:31 AM

I don’t understand conservatives claiming that if Romney is the nominee they will vote for Obama. I might vote for either the Libertarian or the Conservative Party candidate, but never for Obolshevik.

flyfisher on February 7, 2012 at 11:31 AM

rhombus on February 7, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Fair answers, thanks. I do believe people can change. I hope your right. ? Is the Mormon faith strongly against Abortion, if so wouldn’t the church have called him out on this?

MontanaMmmm on February 7, 2012 at 11:31 AM

So what is stopping you from changing the law in Mass? Hmm? Why I bet you have a crack legislative branch and Governor that would gladly repeal that puppy? Right? Or perhaps Romney should have just vetoed the original legislation, that would have solved the whole problem, for you? Huh?

Do tell please about the wonderful legislative branch you have up there, they surely could have stopped this mess of a legislation or fix it, right? Why have you not changed the state law? Seems really simple to me?

uhangtight on February 7, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Agreed. Seems simple for simple minds. Clearly you’re not from Mass and have no appreciation for all the Marxists who live here and love their health insurance mandate. A governor’s veto wouldn’t have accomplished anything beyond taking the governor completely out of the negotiations. Given what the legistlature wanted orignially, I’m surprised we still have ANY private insurers left in Mass at all.

rhombus on February 7, 2012 at 11:32 AM

We need to keep this nomination contest going. Arguably, this benefits Romney. Vote Santorum.

anotherJoe on February 7, 2012 at 11:34 AM

MichiCanuck on February 7, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Movie character analogy is great, but the two which most frequently come to mind for me are Animal House and Man For All Seasons.

Gregory Marmalard is Mitt. Bluto is Newt.

And Richie Rich is also Mitt.

Portia46 on February 7, 2012 at 11:34 AM

The truly depressing part of this race is that, barring a miracle, one of these guys will actually be our nominee.

Obama must be thanking whatever God he believe in for this field of candidates.

DRayRaven on February 7, 2012 at 11:35 AM

I guess some have to try and keep the story going, but this race is over. Santorum and Newt are basically running for VP at this point, which won’t happen for either.

The only thing left is for a group of Republican Occupiers to make noise at the Repub convention this summer.

Moesart on February 7, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Is the Mormon faith strongly against Abortion, if so wouldn’t the church have called him out on this?

MontanaMmmm on February 7, 2012 at 11:31 AM

I believe they very much are opposed but not being a Mormon I can’t tell you for sure. Apparently there are plenty of Mormon experts on this thread (who may or may not be Mormon either) so maybe they could tell you more. I did read somewhere that he went to Salt Lake City before running for Gov and said that he couldn’t “oppose” existing Massachusetts abortion laws if he ever hoped to be elected. Regardless, it had to be a conflict for him. Leaders have to pick their battles and that is a winless battle in Mass (then and now – but hopefully not for some day in the future).

rhombus on February 7, 2012 at 11:38 AM

I don’t understand conservatives claiming that if Romney is the nominee they will vote for Obama. I might vote for either the Libertarian or the Conservative Party candidate, but never for Obolshevik.

flyfisher on February 7, 2012 at 11:31 AM

I think some people may have made that statement merely to further annoy whichever Romney fanatic was denigrating them at the time. I don’t mean me (LOL), just sayin’.

Night Owl on February 7, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Agreed. Seems simple for simple minds
rhombus on February 7, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Oh rhombus you were doing so well for awhile…sigh

MontanaMmmm on February 7, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Can’t believe I’m down to choosing between Romney and the worst not-Romney. Oh well. Any of the not-Romney’s were always a million times better than Obamney.

besser tot als rot on February 7, 2012 at 11:41 AM

No matter what’s going on with the Presidential primary come TX, I’ll still be voting the down-ticket .
In the senate race-David Dewhurst leaves me wanting. He seems like he’d be another KBH.
Ted Cruz crosses me as more of a stick-to your guns conservative.
I’ll be voting for Cruz.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 7, 2012 at 11:43 AM

I don’t understand conservatives claiming that if Romney is the nominee they will vote for Obama. I might vote for either the Libertarian or the Conservative Party candidate, but never for Obolshevik.

flyfisher on February 7, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Because, the thinking goes, Romney or Obama will do about the same amount of damage to the country over the next 4 years. But if Romney wins, he will crush the Republican party (a la Bush in 2008), leaving us with unchecked liberal power as in 2008-2010. Better for Obama to win in 2012 and be checked by Republicans in congress and pray for 2016.

besser tot als rot on February 7, 2012 at 11:45 AM

I am not disputing that a large number of Mormons support Romney, but I am disputing your inference that most of his support comes from Mormons. And, yes, I do post with this brain.

The War Planner on February 7, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Not every Romney supporter is a Mormon. But pretty much every Mormon is a Romney supporter.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again (fully expecting the tinfoil hat comments).

Aside from Utah, 7/8 states with the highest Mormon population are all early primary states. Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, Washington, Colorado, etc. In 2008, Idaho had the primary in May when it didn’t matter. This year it’s on Super Tuesday. Idaho’s population is 25% Mormon. You think that’s a coincidence?

angryed on February 7, 2012 at 11:45 AM

I’ll be voting for Cruz.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 7, 2012 at 11:43 AM

I would have been worried if your answer had been different.

Though, I do think you need a Craig James sign in your yard.

cozmo on February 7, 2012 at 11:45 AM

I don’t understand conservatives claiming that if Romney is the nominee they will vote for Obama. I might vote for either the Libertarian or the Conservative Party candidate, but never for Obolshevik.

flyfisher on February 7, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Because, the thinking goes, Romney or Obama will do about the same amount of damage to the country over the next 4 years. But if Romney wins, he will crush the Republican party (a la Bush in 2008), leaving us with unchecked liberal power as in 2008-2010. Better for Obama to win in 2012 and be checked by Republicans in congress and pray for 2016.

besser tot als rot on February 7, 2012 at 11:45 AM

I’d add…

With Obama, Republicans will add seats in the senate in 2014. To be getting 4 or 5 conservative senators in 2014 is worth having Obama in there 2013-2016 instead of Romney.

angryed on February 7, 2012 at 11:46 AM

I’m surprised we still have ANY private insurers left in Mass at all.

rhombus on February 7, 2012 at 11:32 AM

.
You have nailed it. The real HC struggle is not about yes or no – its’a about what the hell can be salvaged that doesn’t make us all comrades. The lower 47% want Europe – done deal. There’s no changing that.
The baby boomers (70 million) moving through the most expensive part of their life in terms of HC- something will be hitting the fan hard.
If a states right argument can be fought and won, then I see hope. Letting the Fed control HC will be the beginning of the takeover. Romney seems to be a federalist by what he says. He needs to be pushed to cite 10th amendment whenever he can.

FlaMurph on February 7, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Agreed. Seems simple for simple minds
rhombus on February 7, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Oh rhombus you were doing so well for awhile…sigh
MontanaMmmm on February 7, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Sorry, he got in my face. You wouldn’t want me to be a Massachusetts moderate now would you? ;-)

rhombus on February 7, 2012 at 11:47 AM

So what is stopping you from changing the law in Mass? Hmm? Why I bet you have a crack legislative branch and Governor that would gladly repeal that puppy? Right? Or perhaps Romney should have just vetoed the original legislation, that would have solved the whole problem, for you? Huh?

Do tell please about the wonderful legislative branch you have up there, they surely could have stopped this mess of a legislation or fix it, right? Why have you not changed the state law? Seems really simple to me?

uhangtight on February 7, 2012 at 11:24 AM

I don’t think I understand your comment. Are you implying that the ultra-liberal Democratic governor of Massachusetts likes the health care law that Governor Rommey was responsible for? And this is supposed to be an argument in favor of Rommey?

And yes, Romney should have vetoed the law in its entirety. Why is this even up for debate? But before it even got to that point, he should not have put an individual mandate on the table and fought hard for it. And he should have hired more conservatives in health and human services to support development and implementation of reform. And he should not have announced at the height of negotiations with the house and senate that he was not running for reelection. And he should not have reduced his leverage even more by sending clear signals that he was running for President (which everyone knew meant that he needed a signature achievement as Governor). And he should have stuck around more during 2006 to actually focus on implementation of the law.

He argues that all of the bad things about the law were the fault of the Democrats, but he took himself out of the equation at the worst possible time. His excuses are pathetic.

Just Sayin on February 7, 2012 at 11:51 AM

If a states right argument can be fought and won, then I see hope. Letting the Fed control HC will be the beginning of the takeover. Romney seems to be a federalist by what he says. He needs to be pushed to cite 10th amendment whenever he can.

FlaMurph on February 7, 2012 at 11:46 AM

This is the argument you and other defenders of Romney are making. I suppose at the margin state control is better than federal control because it’s more “local”. But at the end of the day it doesn’t make a difference if a federal bureaucrat or a state bureaucrat decides which surgery you can have or which medicine you’re allowed to take. In either case you’re still at the mercy of a govt deciding your health care options for you.

angryed on February 7, 2012 at 11:51 AM

rhombus on February 7, 2012 at 11:23 AM

I can only speak for myself here.
1. My problem is not what a State can or can’t do but what Romney continues to support. It wasn’t conservative. Maybe it was the least offensive Cr*p sandwich available from a political point of view but that doesn’t make it conservative.
2. I can accept that he converted to a pro-life position. My problem was with the many Romney supporters at this site that advocated this very position while rejecting that Newt could have changed as a result of his conversion to the Catholic Religion. (I am not a Newt Supporter but I don’t like the hypocrisy) Why should Romney deserves the benefit of the doubt when they won’t extend the benefit of the doubt to others. Look at some of the comments about Santorum on this thread.
3. Romney ran for governor as a progressive. That he was less progressive than some might have thought he should be does not a conservative make. That is the same misuse of terms that AGW makes with ocean acidification. That the pH of the ocean drops from 8.2 to 8.1 makes it less alkaline but more acidic. It won’t be acidic until it drops under 7.0

There are some who have admitted this and I respect them. They are passionate about Romney being the best choice to run the administrative state. He certainly would be qualitatively better than Obama. I don’t happen to think that is what we need at this point in our history. The problem for me is that the other two are like Romney. They would make good managers of the Administrative state but would only tinker around the edges. In other words European Conservatives that will manage leviathan on the cheap.

chemman on February 7, 2012 at 11:52 AM

angryed on February 7, 2012 at 11:46 AM

And two more SCOTUS justices of the like of Kagen and Sotomayor?

-Four more years of executive branch overreach?
-Four more years of non-congressional regulation?

My family cannot financially survive that.

Whether it is Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum, the day after election day 2012 will be like the day after election day 1980.

cozmo on February 7, 2012 at 11:52 AM

don’t understand conservatives claiming that if Romney is the nominee they will vote for Obama. I might vote for either the Libertarian or the Conservative Party candidate, but never for Obolshevik.

flyfisher on February 7, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Because, the thinking goes, Romney or Obama will do about the same amount of damage to the country over the next 4 years. But if Romney wins, he will crush the Republican party (a la Bush in 2008), leaving us with unchecked liberal power as in 2008-2010. Better for Obama to win in 2012 and be checked by Republicans in congress and pray for 2016.

besser tot als rot on February 7, 2012 at 11:45 AM
I’d add…

With Obama, Republicans will add seats in the senate in 2014. To be getting 4 or 5 conservative senators in 2014 is worth having Obama in there 2013-2016 instead of Romney.

angryed on February 7, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Understand the thinking – the beatings will continue until a “real” conservative is elected. Hasn’t happened in almost 30 years and won’t happen in 2016 either – no matter who is elected in 2012.

rhombus on February 7, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Obama must be thanking whatever God he believe[s] in for this field of candidates.

DRayRaven on February 7, 2012 at 11:35 AM

..one would be wise to tell this fool (Obama) to be careful of what he wishes for. Once this squabbling is put behind us, whoever will be running will have ample opportunity to shine the blowtorch of truth on his silly asss.

He is a sitting POTUS playing spectator while his adversaries disembowel each other before a national audience and the best he can do is manage a few percentage points ahead of these candidates in the highly hypothetical head-to-head races? Even Carter, with all his baggage, led Reagan in head-to-head polling.

Wait ’til he has to act presidential once more. The more the public is reminded of what a fool he is, the more attractive Santorum, Romney, or Gingrich will look.

Well, Santorum or Romney, at least.

The War Planner on February 7, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Quetion for the Romney defenders…

Why didn’t the previous 3 governors of MA (ALL REPUBLICANS) institute govt run health care? They had the same liberal legislature to deal with that you all claim forced Romney to do something he didn’t want to do.

3/4 REPUBLICAN governors did NOT sign into law Obamneycare. The only 1 that did was Romney.

angryed on February 7, 2012 at 11:54 AM

angryed on February 7, 2012 at 11:45 AM

.
Its a mormon conspiracy.

FlaMurph on February 7, 2012 at 11:55 AM

To me, your language implies that most of Romney’s support derives from Mormons. According to Wikipedia (emphasis added):

Mormon Population
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has over 14 million members, with more than half of those members living outside the United States. Wards (the name for a congregation) and branches (similar to wards but smaller) of the Church can be found in 162 countries. Countries with the highest percentage of LDS members are the United States, the countries of Latin America, the Philippines, Canada, England, American Samoa, Tonga, and Western Samoa. The Church has minimal presence in China (though it does have fairly good population in Hong Kong as well as a temple there), the Middle-East, and Cuba. The Church is growing fastest in Africa, Latin America, and east Asia.

Within the United States in Utah about sixty percent of the population are members. That puts the state population of Saints at just over 1.5 million members. In Idaho, fourteen percent of the population are LDS; in Nevada, nine percent; Arizona, six percent; Oregon, four percent; and the rest of the states are at about three percent.

I am not disputing that a large number of Mormons support Romney, but I am disputing your inference that most of his support comes from Mormons. And, yes, I do post with this brain.

The War Planner on February 7, 2012 at 11:19 AM

ABRtards have trouble with the facts.

Gunlock Bill on February 7, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Understand the thinking – the beatings will continue until a “real” conservative is elected. Hasn’t happened in almost 30 years and won’t happen in 2016 either – no matter who is elected in 2012.

rhombus on February 7, 2012 at 11:52 AM

And it won’t with that attitude.

angryed on February 7, 2012 at 11:55 AM

ABRtards have trouble with the facts.

Gunlock Bill on February 7, 2012 at 11:55 AM

LOL. Like the fact Romney increased spending by 30% as governor, but Romney is billed as someone who cut spending.

Those types of facts, eh, Billie Bob?

angryed on February 7, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Santorum is a nice man and a social-conservative proletarian.

Schadenfreude on February 7, 2012 at 11:57 AM

(1) Not every Romney supporter is a Mormon. But pretty much every Mormon is a Romney supporter.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again (2)(fully expecting the tinfoil hat comments).

Aside from Utah, 7/8 states with the highest Mormon population are all early primary states. Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, Washington, Colorado, etc. In 2008, Idaho had the primary in May when it didn’t matter. This year it’s on Super Tuesday. Idaho’s population is 25% Mormon. (3)You think that’s a coincidence?

angryed on February 7, 2012 at 11:45 AM

(1) Agreed. Pretty much what I am saying as well.

(2) [Insert obligatory tin-foil hat comment here.]

(3) Ibidem.

The War Planner on February 7, 2012 at 11:58 AM

The excuses the willard robots make for romneycare is hillarious. The principles you give up to support this fraud.

By any measure, Romneycare is the most important liberal social engineering since the new deal. It WAS romneycare’s initiative not the democratic legistature in massachusetts. Further, this piece of sociolism will stay with ma. for generations.

Then not to be outdone, romneycare’s advisors crafted Obamacare that is one sixth of our economy and doesn’t take effect fully till 2014.

So Romneycare dogs, I mean supporters. Explain to me, how can romneycare argue in the general against obamacare. He can’t, and don’t give me that crap that’s it’s a state vs. national issue. First, his ADVISORS CRAFTED THE NATIONAL OBAMACARE. SECOND, in 2008, FOR PRESIDENT, ROMNEYCARE RAN NATIONALLY FOR PRESIDENT ON HIS ONLY ACCOMPLISHMENT IN OFFICE ROMNEYCARE. FINALLY, THIRD HE STILL WOULD DO ROMNEYCARE ALL OVER AGAIN.

Do it all over again, after seeing Ma. HC system bankrupt, less doctors available, more time waiting in emergency rooms, HC costs up significantly, etc.

Romneycare dogs, don’t try to rewrite history, Romneycare is THE most liberal/sociolist candidate every to run for president as a republican. Only slightly less liberal than obamasatan.

Danielvito on February 7, 2012 at 11:58 AM

“How to get rid of the poodles following the prince’s carriage?” –Romney convoy

Schadenfreude on February 7, 2012 at 11:59 AM

In Idaho, fourteen percent of the population are LDS; in Nevada, nine percent; Arizona, six percent; Oregon, four percent; and the rest of the states are at about three percent.
The War Planner on February 7, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Idaho is not 14%. It’s 26%

angryed on February 7, 2012 at 11:59 AM

chemman on February 7, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Some good points. As for Newt and why he wasn’t cut the same break, a change of heart is not why Newt has 3 wives. He has 3 wives because of demonstrated poor judgment – not thinking it through and boinking an intern (or whatever they were). But that’s not why I rejected Newt. I rejnected Newt because he’s running for President as a Democrat stand-in… Bain, Greed, Where’s your tax returns? Path to Citizenship… while spewing “Pious Baloney” about conservativism. Newt’s about Newt. He makes lots of brilliant statements, he’s clever, he thinks fast on his feet and then pees in the punchbowl. He did the same thing in Congress.

rhombus on February 7, 2012 at 12:00 PM

The War Planner on February 7, 2012 at 11:58 AM

You’re the persistent fighter, TWP. Your effort to keep the ‘house’ sane is nice to watch.

Because I respect and admire you, and am grateful for you, and the likes of you, don’t get hurt too much.

2008 repeats itself to utter perfection.

Not terribly pessimistic, just realistic.

By fall it will all be about foreign policy.

Schadenfreude on February 7, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Forgot, TWP, it will be about foreign policy, by design, from Chicago.

Schadenfreude on February 7, 2012 at 12:02 PM

ABRtards have trouble with the facts.

Gunlock Bill on February 7, 2012 at 11:55 AM

..well, I was kind of nasty to R2B and I apologize for that. It was my just-getting-out-of-bed remark. But I believe I interpreted what he said correctly and it was a factual misstatement.

Anyway, good morning to you, sir. How’ve you been. Did you get your latest bonus check from Romney HQ yet? Understand they’re going to have a catered post-primary soiree tonight. You going? If not, just call them up and they’ll send a limo for ya.

The War Planner on February 7, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Fair answers, thanks. I do believe people can change. I hope your right. ? Is the Mormon faith strongly against Abortion, if so wouldn’t the church have called him out on this?

MontanaMmmm on February 7, 2012 at 11:31 AM

You might want to explore the church’s founder’s own private abortion doctor, Dr. Bennett. Some information can be found here: http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon628.htm

As to the current church chastising Mitt? You have got to be kidding. The rules don’t apply to the big name, big money faithful, and 10% of Mitt’s income is enough to make sure Salt Lake stays out of Mitt’s political business.

Portia46 on February 7, 2012 at 12:06 PM

3/4 REPUBLICAN governors did NOT sign into law Obamneycare. The only 1 that did was Romney.

angryed on February 7, 2012 at 11:54 AM

.
I am gonna say this ONE last time. And stop ignoring it. The liberal commies of the MASS legislature wanted a universal STATE HC law. They crafted a law. They Passed it- sent it to Romney to sign. He TRIED to even VETO portions of the legislation. ALL Rommney’s VETOES WERE OVER-RIDDEN by the MASS legislature. Done deal.
.
The Super Majority legislature essentially PASSED THE LAW WITH OR WITHOUT a Governor. So your 3 outta 4 governor’s question is nothing more than the timing of the legislature action. You really need to know how Mass works as a state.

FlaMurph on February 7, 2012 at 12:07 PM

cozmo on February 7, 2012 at 11:45 AM

I’ll bite. Who is Craig James…or don’t I want to know.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 7, 2012 at 12:08 PM

So you want someone who’ll ban contraceptives on the moon?
EddieC on February 7, 2012 at 10:35 AM

You can ban SUVs on the moon too.

It’s still CHEAPER than OBAMACARE/ROMNEYCARE in the USA.

mr_west on February 7, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4