Three new MI polls show Santorum with lead

posted at 8:40 am on February 16, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

National pollsters have already released surveys showing Rick Santorum taking a lead over Mitt Romney in Romney’s native state of Michigan.  Today, three state-based polls concur, showing leads from just under four points to ten points in the key battleground state.  The Detroit News poll shows the tightest margin (via Politico’s Morning Blast e-mail):

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum has a slim lead over Mitt Romney, an indication the Michigan native son has yet to convince state voters he should be the Republican nominee for president, a Detroit News poll shows.

Santorum leads Romney 34 percent to 30.4 percent among likely Republican primary voters, but the gap is within the margin of error of 4.4 percentage points.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich had support from 11.6 percent of respondents, former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul had 8.9 percent and 12.4 percent was undecided.

USA Today reports on the other two polls, which show leads of nine and ten points:

The MRG Michigan Poll shows Santorum, a former U.S.senator from Pennsylvania, with 43% of the support to 33% for native son Mitt Romney, who has long been considered the front-runner in Michigan.

In the MRG poll, former House speaker Newt Gingrichcame in at 11% and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas had 8%. …

Mitchell Research, a polling firm in East Lansing, Mich., also has a new survey out showing Santorum with a 9-point lead over Romney in the Feb. 28 presidential primary in Michigan.

The Mitchell poll was done for MIRS, the Michigan Information & Research Service, and shows Santorum at 34% to Romney’s 25%. Less than two weeks ago, Romney was at 31%, with a 15-point lead over former Gingrich (16%), trailed by Santorum (15%) and Paul (15%).

In the new poll, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.6-percentage points, Paul trails Santorum and Romney with 11% and Gingrich is behind them with 5% of the survey respondents.

The MRG poll was conducted among 800 Republican voters, which might be problematic if USA Today means registered Republicans only.  Independents can vote in the GOP primary in Michigan, and the wording implies that the poll was conducted among registered rather than likely Republicans without any independents.  The Mitchell poll, however, surveyed 455 likely voters in the primary, which is a better sample — and one that came up with essentially same result.   The Detroit News poll surveyed 500 likely voters, similar to the Mitchell poll, but with somewhat more divergent results.

Clearly, Santorum has momentum in Michigan, and as Tina noted yesterday, in Arizona too, although he still trails in the latter.  One question that arises is that of timing.  Both of these contests are still almost two weeks away, which is plenty of time for Romney to spend a lot of cash to slow Santorumentum down, and possibly reverse it.   The danger for Santorum is peaking too soon and raising expectations in Michigan before the Super Tuesday contests.  If Santorum ends up losing Michigan after getting leads across the board in all these polls, it will be difficult to regenerate momentum in a single week to take on Romney in ten states.

Santorum’s fundraising has picked up and he’s trying an attack strategy on Romney designed to undercut Romney’s credibility by painting him as a mudslinger, but the effectiveness of that strategy has yet to be tested.  The four candidates return for another debate on February 22nd, and Santorum can expect the hot-seat treatment from Romney and perhaps Gingrich as well, a new role for Santorum in these debates. Romney has already gone after Santorum as a big-government, big-spending Washington insider, but the Weekly Standard defends Santorum on those charges:

The National Taxpayers Union (NTU) has been rating members of Congress for 20 years.  NTU is an independent, non-partisan organization that — per its mission statement — “mobilizes elected officials and the general public on behalf of tax relief and reform, lower and less wasteful spending, individual liberty, and free enterprise.”  Steve Forbes serves on its board of directors.

For each session of Congress, NTU scores each member on an A-to-F scale.  NTU weights members’ votes based on those votes’ perceived effect on both the immediate and future size of the federal budget.  Those who get A’s are among “the strongest supporters of responsible tax and spending policies”; they receive NTU’s “Taxpayers’ Friend Award.”  B’s are “good” scores, C’s are “minimally acceptable” scores, D’s are “poor” scores, and F’s earn their recipients membership in the “Big Spender” category.  There is no grade inflation whatsoever, as we shall see.

NTU’s scoring paints a radically different picture of Santorum’s 12-year tenure in the Senate (1995 through 2006) than one would glean from the rhetoric of the Romney campaign.  Fifty senators served throughout Santorum’s two terms:  25 Republicans, 24 Democrats, and 1 Republican/Independent.  On a 4-point scale (awarding 4 for an A, 3.3 for a B+, 3 for a B, 2.7 for a B-, etc.), those 50 senators’ collective grade point average (GPA) across the 12 years was 1.69 — which amounts to a C-.  Meanwhile, Santorum’s GPA was 3.66 — or an A-.  Santorum’s GPA placed him in the top 10 percent of senators, as he ranked 5th out of 50.

Across the 12 years in question, only 6 of the 50 senators got A’s in more than half the years.  Santorum was one of them.  He was also one of only 7 senators who never got less than a B.  (Jim Talent served only during Santorum’s final four years, but he always got less than a B, earning a B- every year and a GPA of 2.7.)  Moreover, while much of the Republican party lost its fiscal footing after George W. Bush took office — although it would be erroneous to say that the Republicans were nearly as profligate as the Democrats — Santorum was the only senator who got A’s in every year of Bush’s first term.  None of the other 49 senators could match Santorum’s 4.0 GPA over that span.

I’ve been seeing a lot of comments and tweets about Santorum’s supposed profligacy as Senator, but that doesn’t match his record vis-a-vis the NTU scoring.  People have honest differences with Santorum on the emphasis of social issues (although Santorum himself has emphasized his economic plans in this campaign), and I wrote that I have a few disagreements with Santorum’s positions, DADT among them.  He’s not a perfect conservative, to be sure, and questions about how he would stack up against Barack Obama in the general election are legitimate concerns.  However, the alternatives are the person who signed an individual health-care mandate into law in Massachusetts, and the man who both backed individual mandates until 2010 and sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi to push global-warming alarmism a few years before that, and both of whom also spent three or four weeks sounding more like an Occupier on Bain Capital and Freddie Mac work than a Republican.  Those issues occurred  more recently than any sins committed by Santorum while in the Senate, which is why I’m not buying the idea that Santorum is the big-government candidate about which I should be worried.


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

kingsjester on February 16, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Yeah, he was chair of the Republican Governors Association and spent a significant amount of time on national Republican causes. I suppose that and probably the weakest Republican State Organization in the country would help make one unpopular.

But then, we are drawing logical conclusions again.

Marcus Traianus on February 16, 2012 at 10:17 AM

I am not attempting to be provocative or offensive, but in all honesty, I think supporting Santorum is akin to following the Rev. Jim Jones. If Santorum becomes the nominee, I will see nothing but an act of political suicide. I consider myself to be very conservative in thought, word and deed, but I firmly believe we need to bring the electorate along to our way of thinking gradually. How many of the mainstream voters would he actually capture in the general? People like you and me, sure, but it won’t be much more than that.

lynncgb on February 16, 2012 at 10:18 AM

“Lets be clear, if the weekly jobless claims keep coming in at 348k, or something similar (granted they will probably be revised up next week), and the unemployment rate keeps falling because of gimmicks, it wont matter who the nominee is.”

People are just ignoring the fact that Obama WILL NOT LOSE with improving economic numbers like this. His approval rating is already at 50% or above in every poll now and it’s just going to keep getting better. This is Reagan in 84 and Clinton in 96 all over again, where it becomes ingrained that things are getting better, the public makes up it’s mind early, and by summer just tunes out politics since they already know the winner.

gumbyandpokey on February 16, 2012 at 10:18 AM

i am for paul, but I can tolerate romeny social views, because they are none. In social issues he is nothing but a panderer with no core. and amazingly, I am quite ok with it. maybe you should too, because its the best compromise we can get.

nathor on February 16, 2012 at 10:05 AM

I think that Romney has a strong set of personal values and ethics, but he is a businessman by temperament and experience, and business people do not generally play politics with their personal beliefs. It definitely puts him at odds with socons and makes him far more appealing to libertarians than Santorum.

Priscilla on February 16, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Any “conservative” who says he/she/it will vote for Obama in 2012 is no conservative. If he wins a second term, say goodbye to the USA. Hotgas here will become illegal by 2015.

either orr on February 16, 2012 at 10:09 AM

in santorum wins, atheist like me will be illegal. how is that for overblown fearmongering?

nathor on February 16, 2012 at 10:16 AM

You guys are both missing the real point. America is already dead. 2012 is a referendum on whether there’s anything left worth salvaging.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Of course Santorum’s ahead.

Michigan is a deeply conservative, Southern, bible-belt state and 90% of Michiaganers are evangelical rednecks and anti-mormon bigots.

CorporatePiggy on February 16, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Thanks for clearing that up for me. Oh, and the laugh.
Phew

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 16, 2012 at 10:18 AM

I am not attempting to be provocative or offensive, but in all honesty, I think supporting Santorum is akin to following the Rev. Jim Jones. If Santorum becomes the nominee, I will see nothing but an act of political suicide. I consider myself to be very conservative in thought, word and deed, but I firmly believe we need to bring the electorate along to our way of thinking gradually. How many of the mainstream voters would he actually capture in the general? People like you and me, sure, but it won’t be much more than that.

lynncgb on February 16, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Sheldon Cooper, much?

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Whatever helps you sleep, bub. I don’t do what I do or say what I say because I think it’ll make me popular with some anonymous internet douchebag.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:13 AM

I sleep fine, y’alls nutball rantings are entertainment.

cozmo on February 16, 2012 at 10:20 AM

We really might end up with Santorum, huh? Someone with no executive experience, whose main claims to fame are basically limited to far-right social views and a landslide loss in his last run.
This isn’t ending well.
changer1701 on February 16, 2012 at 9:34 AM

I’m not trying to infringe on your right to ‘free speech’, but you are about 100th poster to state this ‘premise’ (always with slightly different wording, from one poster to another), and it’s WEARING THIN.

listens2glenn on February 16, 2012 at 10:20 AM

in santorum wins, atheist like me will be illegal.

nathor on February 16, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Clutch those pearls just a wee bit tighter. I’ve never seen anyone actually garrotte themselves before.

Kent18 on February 16, 2012 at 10:21 AM

I sleep fine, y’alls nutball rantings are entertainment.

cozmo on February 16, 2012 at 10:20 AM

If my “nutball ramblings” concerning my desire to follow the constitution are entertainment to you, then you just made my case for me that we DO in fact deserve another four years of Obama — and you personally, as well.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:21 AM

If you have never voted for an expansion of the federal government, you are The Establishment. – Romney hater.

csdeven on February 16, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Clutch those pearls just a wee bit tighter. I’ve never seen anyone actually garrotte themselves before.

Kent18 on February 16, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Then you’ll want to have all your liberal coworkers and friends in the same room watching election returns in November when Obama loses. LOL

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:22 AM

— and you personally, as well.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Thank you, that is downright Obamaish liberal of you.

Bless your heart.

cozmo on February 16, 2012 at 10:23 AM

in santorum wins, atheist like me will be illegal. how is that for overblown fearmongering?

nathor on February 16, 2012 at 10:16 AM

That really is overblown. The sad thing is, my problem is obviously just the opposite of yours. My life is, sadly, not interesting enough anymore to be affected by anything you seem to fear so much. LOL I’m not a Santorum supporter, although I will vote for him if he’s the nominee, but I really think you are worrying about nothing.

Night Owl on February 16, 2012 at 10:23 AM

If you are not Romney, yet have voted dozens of times for the expansion of the federal government, you were TEA Party before there was a TEA Party. – Romney Hater.

csdeven on February 16, 2012 at 10:23 AM

I am not attempting to be provocative or offensive, but in all honesty, I think supporting Santorum is akin to following the Rev. Jim Jones. If Santorum becomes the nominee, I will see nothing but an act of political suicide. I consider myself to be very conservative in thought, word and deed, but I firmly believe we need to bring the electorate along to our way of thinking gradually. How many of the mainstream voters would he actually capture in the general? People like you and me, sure, but it won’t be much more than that.

lynncgb on February 16, 2012 at 10:18 AM

I’m a member of the libertarian wing of the party Santorum despises. And he won’t capture my vote if he’s the nominee. I’ll be voting for Gary Johnson.

DRayRaven on February 16, 2012 at 10:24 AM

One of our Frontrunners insisted in 1990 that he was not “a Reagan Republican”. His campaign documents reportedly declared that he was a “progressive republican”. He supported cuts in defense spending, and supported the HeadStart program.

What about abortion? Well, he made the wishy-washy statement that “…he opposed government funding for abortions, but “beyond that I tried as much as I could to dance around the issue, not really take a position on it.”

Who is this Northeastern RINO with such a squishy liberal past? Why Rick Santorum of course.

Now let me make myself perfectly clear on this. I don’t hold it against Santorum for this — not at all. This happened over twenty years ago. Long time readers of this blog know that I have a ten year statute of limitations on stupidity. Anything stupid somebody did more than ten years ago is all water under the bridge as far as I am concerned. Unless they’ve done something similar in the more recent past, I assume they’ve learned their lesson. It’s time to move on.

No, what I am amused at is all the purists out there. Think of all the anti-Romneys who have been outraged — outraged, I tell you — because Mitt Romney made similar statements in the past. They now will have to explain why Santorum should get a pass for saying practically the same thing that upset them so much when Romney did it.

This should fun to watch.

by Mark B. Lowe

THIS!!!!!

Gunlock Bill on February 16, 2012 at 10:24 AM

I firmly believe we need to bring the electorate along to our way of thinking gradually.

lynncgb on February 16, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Yep. Baby steps. Those in the “mushy middle,” who decide presidential elections, won’t buy what Santorum is selling at present.

Syzygy on February 16, 2012 at 10:24 AM

The Weekly standard defends this voting record:

NEA
Voted for taxpayer funding of the National Endowment for the Arts.
Voted against a 10% cut in the budget for National Endowment for the Arts.

Bankruptcy
Voted for a Schumer amendment to make the debts of pro-life demonstrators not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Defense and Foreign Policy

Voted for the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
Voted against requiring the President to certify that the CWC is effectively verifiable.

Voted against requiring the President to certify that that Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, China, and all other countries determined to be state sponsors of terror have joined CWC prior to submitting the instrument of ratification.

Voted for the START II Treaty
Voted to allow the sale of supercomputers to China.
Voted to ban antipersonnel landmines
Voted against increasing defense spending offset by equivalent cuts in non-defense spending.
Voted to require that Federal bureaucrats get the same payraises as uniformed military.
Voted to allow food and medicine sales to state sponsors of terror and tyranical regimes such as Libya and Cuba.
Voted to limit the President’s authority to impose sanctions on nations for reasons of national security unless the sanctions were approved by a multilateral regime.
Voted against requiring Congressional authorization for military action in Bosnia.
Voted to give $25 million in foreign aid to North Korea
Voted to weaken alien terrorist deportation provisions. If the Court determines that the evidence must be withheld for national security reasons, the Justice Department must still provide a summary of the evidence sufficient for the alien terrorist to mount a defense against deportation.
Voted against delaying the India Nuclear until the President certified that India had agreed to suspend military-to-military exchanges with Iran.
Voted against the Conventional Trident Missile Program

Nominations
Voted for Richard Paez to the 9th Curcuit (cloture)
Voted for Sonia Sotomayor, Circuit Judge
Voted for Richard Holbrooke to be Ambassador to the UN
Voted for Margaret Morrow to be District Judge
Voted twice for Marsha Berzon to the 9thg Circuit
Voted for Mary McLaughlin to be District Judge
Voted for Tim Dyk to be District Judge
Voted for James Brady to be District Judge

Labor
Voted against National Right to Work Act
Voted against Real of Davis-Bacon Prevailing union wages
Voted for Alexis Herman to be Secretary of Labor
Voted for mandatory Federal child care funding
Voted for Trade Adjustment Assistance.
Voted for Job Corps funding
Voted twice in support of Fedex Unionization
Voted against allowing a waiver of Davis-Bacon in emergency situations.
Voted for minimum wage increases six times here here here here here and here
Voted to require a union representative on an IRS oversight board.
Voted to exempt IRS union representative from criminal ethics laws.
Voted against creating independent Board of Governors to investigate IRS abuses.
Guns

Voted to require pawn shops to do background checks on people who pawn a gun.
Voted twice to make it illegal to sell a gun without a secure storage or safety device
Voted for a Federal ban on possession of “assault weapons” by those under 18.
Voted for Federal funding for anti-gun education programs in schools.
Voted for anti-gun juvenile justice bill.

Reform

Voted for funding for the legal services corporation.
Voted twice for a Congressional payraise.
Voted to impose a uniform Federal mandate on states to force them to allow convicted rapits, arsonists, drug kingpins, and all other ex-convicts to vote in Federal elections.
Voted for the Specter “backup plan” to allow campaign finance reform to survive if portions of the bill were found unconstitutional.
Voted to mandate discounted broadcast times for politicians.
Voted for a McCain amendment to require State and local campaign committees to report all campaign contributions to the FEC and to require all campaign contributions to be reported to the FEC within 24 hours within 90 days of an election.

Immigration
Voted against increasing the number of immigration investigators
Voted to allow illegal immigrants to receive the earned income credit before becoming citizens
Voted to give SSI benefits to legal aliens.
Voted to give welfare benefits to naturalized citizens without regard to to the earnings of their sponsors.
Voted against hiring an additional 1,000 border partrol agents, paid for by reductions in state grants.

Taxes
Voted against a flat tax.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for Medicare prescription drugs
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to fund health insurance subsidies for small businesses.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for an $8 billion increase in child healh insurance.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for an increase in NIH funding.
Voted twice for internet taxes.
Voted to allow gas tax revenues to be used to subsidize Amtrak.
Voted to strike marriage penalty tax relief and instead provide fines on tobacco companies.
Voted against repealing the Clinton 4.3 cent gas tax increase.
Voted to increase taxes by $2.3 billion to pay for an Amtrak trust fund.
Voted to allow welfare to a minor who had a child out of wedlock and who resided with an adult who was on welfare within the previous two years.
Voted to increase taxes by $9.4 billion to pay for a $9.4 billion increase in student loans.
Voted to say that AMT patch is more important than capital gains and dividend relief.

Welfare
Voted against food stamp reform
Voted against Medicaid reform
Voted against TANF reform
Voted to increase the Social Services Block Grant from $1 billion to $2 billion
Voted to increase the FHA loan from $170,000 to $197,000. Also opposed increasing GNMA guaranty from 6 basis points to 12.
Voted for $2 billion for low income heating assistance.

Waste
Sponsored An amendment to increase Amtrak funds by $550 million
Voted to use HUD funds for the Joslyn Art Museum (NE), the Stand Up for Animals project (RI) and the Seattle Art Museum’s Olympic Sculpture Project (WA)
Voted to increase spending on social programs by $7 billion
Voted to increase NIH funding by $1.6 billion.
Voted to increase NIHnding by $700 million
Voted to for a $2 million earmark to renovate the Vulcan Monument (AL)
Voted for a $1 billion bailout for the steel industry
Voted against requiring that highway earmarks would come out of a state’s highway allocation
Voted to allow Market Access Program funds to go to foreign companies.
Voted to allow OPIC to increase its administrative costs by 50%
Voted against transferring $20 million from Americorps to veterans.
Voted for the $140 billion asbestos compensation bill.
Voted against requiring a uniform medical criteria to ensure asbestos claims were legitimate.
Voted to increase community development programs by $2 billion.

Spending and Entitlements
Voted to make Medicare part B premium subsidies an new entitlement.
Voted against paying off the debt ($5.6 trillion at the time) within 30 years.
Voted to give $18 billion to the IMF.
Voted to raid Social Security instead of using surpluses to pay down the debt.

Health Care
Voted to allow states to impose health care mandates that are stricter than proposed new Federal mandates, but not weaker.
Voted twice for Federal mental health parity mandates in health insurance.
Voted against a allow consumers the option to purchase a plan outside the parity mandate.

Education
Voted to increase Federal funding for teacher testing
Voted to increase spending for the Department of Education by $3.1 billion.
Voted against requiring courts to consider the impact of IDEA awards on a local school district.

Energy

Voted to allow the President to designate certain sites as interim nuclear waste storage sites in the event that he determines that Yucca Mountain is not a suitable site for a permanent waste repository. Those sites are as follows: the nuclear waste site in Hanford, Washington; the Savannah River Site in South Carolina; Barnwell County, South Carolina; and the Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee.

Voted to make fuel price gouging a Federal crime.

How “Not-Mitt” of them

tbrickert on February 16, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Clutch those pearls just a wee bit tighter. I’ve never seen anyone actually garrotte themselves before.

Kent18 on February 16, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Then you’ll want to have all your liberal coworkers and friends in the same room watching election returns in November when Obama loses. LOL

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:22 AM

… ummmmmmmmmmmm… do what, now…? ;)

Kent18 on February 16, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Santorum is only truly honorable in issues where I take the opposite view. ugh!

nathor on February 16, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Yep. Politics ain’t beanbag.

csdeven on February 16, 2012 at 10:25 AM

in santorum wins, atheist like me will be illegal.

nathor on February 16, 2012 at 10:16 AM

I can play this game:

If Romney wins, coffee, tea, and alcohol will be illegal.

flyfisher on February 16, 2012 at 10:25 AM

About your assumption, you were saying?

kingsjester on February 16, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Thank you, you helped make my point. No mention of religion there at all, just as I said….just an acknowledgement that Santorum is very vulnerable on social issues ;)

Priscilla on February 16, 2012 at 10:26 AM

I’m a member of the libertarian wing of the party Santorum despises. And he won’t capture my vote if he’s the nominee. I’ll be voting for pissing away my vote on Gary Johnson.

DRayRaven on February 16, 2012 at 10:24 AM

FIFY, Champ.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:27 AM

j

fs756 on February 16, 2012 at 10:02 AM

it is my opinion that the reason Romney is falling behind isn’t because of his Mormonism … it is more along the lines of:
1. Romneycare …
2. Gun grabber
3. Global warming true believer
4. tax fee raising

Dem lite ….

conservative tarheel on February 16, 2012 at 10:27 AM

FIFY, Champ.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:27 AM

It beats pissing it away on Santorum, who will lose in a landslide, anyway.

DRayRaven on February 16, 2012 at 10:28 AM

jfs756 on February 16, 2012 at 10:02 AM

it is my opinion that the reason Romney is falling behind isn’t because of his Mormonism … it is more along the lines of:
1. Romneycare …
2. Gun grabber
3. Global warming true believer
4. tax fee raising

Dem lite ….

conservative tarheel on February 16, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Nobody’s perfect.

/Rombots

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Great job evangelicals, neo-cons and wing-nuts.

You’ll get Obama re-elected, and we’ll get four more years!!

Democrats are cheering you on!

http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/daily-kos-to-make-mischief-in-republican-primary

mountainaires on February 16, 2012 at 9:00 AM

It’s ok! JugEars can hear you cheering airhead! How do you think his ears got so big?

KOOLAID2 on February 16, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Great post Ed!

Let’s crank up the Megadeth and go Santorum!!

LevinFan on February 16, 2012 at 10:28 AM

You’ve become more conservative, so you put more trust in Romney, all evidence to the contrary?

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Notice I said that’s “partially” why I favor Romney. I understand and am willing to accept his explanation for his record. And, as has been said many many times, he was governing in the very liberal state of Massachusetts.

Syzygy on February 16, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Amusing how Byron York has an article about how Romney would seriously consider Rick Santorum as a VP. Of course he would, they’ll need a conservative running mate to prop him up much as they did with John McCain. It worked so well the last time (sarc/). I sure as Hades hope that Rick Santorum doesn’t consider a putz like Romney for VP. Blech! Maybe for the Dept. of Treasury since that seems to be his claim to fame, but not much else. It’s no wonder that Rick Santorum is ahead. People are vetting the candidates as they should – contrary to the “don’t pay attention to the man behind the curtain” method of the republican establishment. And the cream is rising to the top. Bravo!

mozalf on February 16, 2012 at 10:29 AM

It beats pissing it away on Santorum, who will lose in a landslide, anyway.

DRayRaven on February 16, 2012 at 10:28 AM

No sense of irony, eh? I’m voting for someone who has no chance, and you’re voting for someone who has even less of a chance. LOLOLOLzzz

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Sheldon Cooper, much?

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Oh, there will be a Big Bang, that’s for sure.

lynncgb on February 16, 2012 at 10:30 AM

it is my opinion that the reason Romney is falling behind isn’t because of his Mormonism … it is more along the lines of:
1. Romneycare …
2. Gun grabber
3. Global warming true believer
4. tax fee raising

Dem lite ….

conservative tarheel on February 16, 2012 at 10:27 AM


“WHY DO YOU HATE DONNY OSMOND — ?!?”

/Team Mittens

Kent18 on February 16, 2012 at 10:30 AM

it is my opinion that the reason Romney is falling behind isn’t because of his Mormonism … it is more along the lines of:
1. Romneycare …
2. Gun grabber
3. Global warming true believer
4. tax fee raising

Dem lite ….

conservative tarheel on February 16, 2012 at 10:27 AM

I agree with you. Throw in his history on abortion and he’s absolutely toxic in the South.

flyfisher on February 16, 2012 at 10:30 AM

But then, we are drawing logical conclusions again.

Marcus Traianus on February 16, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Stop doing that. It only further illustrates his status as HA’s premier ninnyhammer. Then he gets really nasty and starts spamming HA with links to his lame@ssed blog.

csdeven on February 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM

I’m not trying to infringe on your right to ‘free speech’, but you are about 100th poster to state this ‘premise’ (always with slightly different wording, from one poster to another), and it’s WEARING THIN.

listens2glenn on February 16, 2012 at 10:20 AM

How about the premise that he thinks contraception should be illegal. Oh, and women who were raped should not be allowed to have an abortion. Yes, he believes those things.

BTW, he lost his election by 18 points. The real conservatives sure can pick winners. :P

rubberneck on February 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM

ProudPalinFan on February 16, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Just to be clear…I meant that as a pile-on. I had a hunch something was wrong so I went to the Urban Dictionary…omg. My meaning is there but very well hidden. So, sorry! Wow the stuff ppl come up with is quite “improper.”

ProudPalinFan on February 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM

No sense of irony, eh? I’m voting for someone who has no chance, and you’re voting for someone who has even less of a chance. LOLOLOLzzz

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:29 AM

OK, I gotcha.
Watching the attacks fly back and forth around here for so long, I guess I had a bit of an itchy trigger finger.

It’s all good.

DRayRaven on February 16, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Notice I said that’s “partially” why I favor Romney. I understand and am willing to accept his explanation for his record. And, as has been said many many times, he was governing in the very liberal state of Massachusetts.

Syzygy on February 16, 2012 at 10:28 AM

So? Scott Walker was governing in the very liberal state of Wisconsin and look what he managed to accomplish there. Besides which, this picture makes it look like Romney didn’t exactly have to get his arm twisted to work with all those uber-liberal federal figures that should have had NOTHING TO DO with passing a state law.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Sheldon Cooper, much?

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Oh, there will be a Big Bang, that’s for sure.

lynncgb on February 16, 2012 at 10:30 AM

That’s my jab at people that really believe what they’re saying and yet somehow seem completely and pathologically unaware of how they offend others.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Priscilla on February 16, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Get off of it. Answer me this: Why does Santorum hold these positions?

Spin, baby. Spin.

kingsjester on February 16, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Yep. Baby steps. Those in the “mushy middle,” who decide presidential elections, won’t buy what Santorum is selling at present.

Syzygy on February 16, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Another commenter pointed out how the left understands and employs this strategy all too well. Many Republicans just want to yank hard to the right, and it will fail miserably.

lynncgb on February 16, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Stop doing that. It only further illustrates his status as HA’s premier ninnyhammer. Then he gets really nasty and starts spamming HA with links to his lame@ssed blog.

csdeven on February 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Find one today, obsessor.

You’re full of it.

kingsjester on February 16, 2012 at 10:37 AM

I can’t come here anymore.

cya.

ConservativeLaw on February 16, 2012 at 9:03 AM
You wrote essentially the same thing yesterday. Yet, here you are.

cozmo on February 16, 2012 at 9:21 AM

I used to be a Cub Scout…I can assist you to get back across the street!

KOOLAID2 on February 16, 2012 at 10:37 AM

I think that Romney has a strong set of personal values and ethics, but he is a businessman by temperament and experience, and business people do not generally play politics with their personal beliefs. It definitely puts him at odds with socons and makes him far more appealing to libertarians than Santorum.

Priscilla on February 16, 2012 at 10:18 AM

I also think he has some personal values, but are their own. his public opinion on social issues however is bought by his political ambition.

nathor on February 16, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Another commenter pointed out how the left understands and employs this strategy all too well. Many Republicans just want to yank hard to the right, and it will fail miserably.

lynncgb on February 16, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Others are content to maintain the status quo, which will also fail miserably, though for entirely different reasons.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:37 AM

I really don’t understand this bickering over Romney or Santorum, but do believe that if it continues to look like Obama has this thing wrapped up, than people will vote for the guy they like the best and that’s Santorum. If you’re going to get your behind whipped no matter the choice, electability will be the last thing on voters minds.

gumbyandpokey on February 16, 2012 at 10:38 AM

I agree with you. Throw in his history on abortion and he’s absolutely toxic in the South.

flyfisher on February 16, 2012 at 10:30 AM

That’s what you and I’ve been saying for quite a while now, isn’t it?

kingsjester on February 16, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Yep. Baby steps. Those in the “mushy middle,” who decide presidential elections, won’t buy what Santorum is selling at present.

Syzygy on February 16, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Another commenter pointed out how the left understands and employs this strategy all too well. Many Republicans just want to yank hard to the right, and it will fail miserably.

lynncgb on February 16, 2012 at 10:36 AM

So can I put you two cowards on-record as being willing to let the left set the terms of the debate?

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:38 AM

it is my opinion that the reason Romney is falling behind isn’t because of his Mormonism … it is more along the lines of:
1. Romneycare …
2. Gun grabber
3. Global warming true believer
4. tax fee raising

Dem lite ….

conservative tarheel on February 16, 2012 at 10:27 AM

1. Romneycare … Wont matter in the general as the SCOTUS will have decided it’s fate.
2. Gun grabber Wrong. His legislation received pro-gun support.
3. Global warming true believer Perhaps
4. tax fee raising So what? many of those fees had not been adjusted for over 20 years. And they are use fees.

csdeven on February 16, 2012 at 10:39 AM

I really don’t understand this bickering over Romney or Santorum, but do believe that if it continues to look like Obama has this thing wrapped up, than people will vote for the guy they like the best and that’s Santorum. If you’re going to get your behind whipped no matter the choice, electability will be the last thing on voters minds.

gumbyandpokey on February 16, 2012 at 10:38 AM

And if enough people feel the same in the general, who knows what will happen? What looks like a “stunning electoral upset” now might not be outside the realm of possibility six months from now.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:40 AM

So? Scott Walker was governing in the very liberal state of Wisconsin and look what he managed to accomplish there.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Different times and different electorate. Romney was governor before the Tea party revolution. And apparently the people of MA wanted Romneycare. It’s all been said before, and I’m not going to argue it again. (And, unfortunately, I’ve got to go in to the office now, so I’ll have to leave it for another day.)

Syzygy on February 16, 2012 at 10:40 AM

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:33 AM

I apologize for offending. I have only my sincere passion to see this administration defeated in November, to offer as an excuse.

lynncgb on February 16, 2012 at 10:40 AM

I’m not trying to infringe on your right to ‘free speech’, but you are about 100th poster to state this ‘premise’ (always with slightly different wording, from one poster to another), and it’s WEARING THIN.

listens2glenn on February 16, 2012 at 10:20 AM

I’m sorry that you’ve had to see so much of other’s doubts about Santy’s viability as a presidential candidate. Truly…it breaks my heart. /

changer1701 on February 16, 2012 at 10:42 AM

I apologize for offending. I have only my sincere passion to see this administration defeated in November, to offer as an excuse.

lynncgb on February 16, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Apology accepted. But as much as I’ve said it already, it bears repeating: Don’t act out of fear of Obama. Act out of a desire for something better to follow him.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:42 AM

I’m sorry that you’ve had to see so much of other’s doubts about Santy’s viability as a presidential candidate. Truly…it breaks my heart. /

changer1701 on February 16, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Just keep saying the same crap over and over again and someone might actually begin to believe that it matters./

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:44 AM

So can I put you two cowards on-record as being willing to let the left set the terms of the debate?

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:38 AM

So we’ve resorted to name-calling now. Very mature.

The left will set the terms of the debate whether you or I or anyone else likes it.

Syzygy on February 16, 2012 at 10:44 AM

That’s my jab at people that really believe what they’re saying and yet somehow seem completely and pathologically unaware of how they offend others.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Good. Now explain the one @ 10:22… because I still have no idea what it was you were going for, there. ;)

Kent18 on February 16, 2012 at 10:44 AM

I agree with you. Throw in his history on abortion and he’s absolutely toxic in the South.

flyfisher on February 16, 2012 at 10:30 AM

That’s what you and I’ve been saying for quite a while now, isn’t it?

kingsjester on February 16, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Indeed we have.

flyfisher on February 16, 2012 at 10:45 AM

So we’ve resorted to name-calling now. Very mature.

The left will set the terms of the debate whether you or I or anyone else likes it.

Syzygy on February 16, 2012 at 10:44 AM

No. The left will try to set the terms of the debate. And a significant portion of our electorate, such as yourself, will let them do it. If I were in your shoes, this is not something I’d take pride in.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:46 AM

So can I put you two cowards on-record as being willing to let the left set the terms of the debate?

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Thank you, gryphon! It’s attitudes like these that are destroying the Republican Party little by little. No backbone and wishy-washy.

mozalf on February 16, 2012 at 10:46 AM

I’m a member of the libertarian wing of the party Santorum despises. And he won’t capture my vote if he’s the nominee. I’ll be voting for Gary Johnson.

DRayRaven on February 16, 2012 at 10:24 AM

As a “Conservatarian”, I may be joining you.
No more voting for the LOC: Least Objectionable Candidate.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 16, 2012 at 10:46 AM

I don’t believe it. Romney will be the nominee

liberal4life on February 16, 2012 at 9:32 AM

W O W !

This nomination process will leave Romney BROKE

liberal4life on February 16, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Oh W O W !

I am truly amazed, that when someone can operate in their daily life with one or two brain cells…they can remember to say the same thing e v e r y d a y !

KOOLAID2 on February 16, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Good. Now explain the one @ 10:22… because I still have no idea what it was you were going for, there. ;)

Kent18 on February 16, 2012 at 10:44 AM

You just said you hadn’t seen anyone garrotte themselves before. I figured it’d be pretty entertaining to watch something like that happen en masse.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:47 AM

I’m a member of the libertarian wing of the party Santorum despises. And he won’t capture my vote if he’s the nominee. I’ll be voting for Gary Johnson.

DRayRaven on February 16, 2012 at 10:24 AM

As a “Conservatarian”, I may be joining you.
No more voting for the LOC: Least Objectionable Candidate.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 16, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Hey, you guys are at least principled. I’ll give you that. That’s more than I can say for the rombots.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Most atheists I know are very liberal and support democrats. The atheists on HA who are demeaning Santorum and supposedly supporting Romney are liberals. I consider all of the Atheist hatred towards Santorum to be religious bigotry and tells me all I need to know about Romney. I can only conclude the Atheists view Mormonism as a non religion and are thus comfortable with Romney, the liberal. In any event, the Republican candidate, no matter who he is, is not going to get the Atheist vote. Here’s an excerpt from a recent study on religious and non religious voting preferences:

What are you seeing among voters who are not affiliated with a particular religion?

Religiously unaffiliated voters have tended to vote Democratic in the last few years. In 2008 we see a fairly significant increase in the support of unaffiliated voters for Obama compared with their support for Kerry in 2004.

In this study, we are able to break them up into three groups. One group is composed of self-identified atheists and agnostics, who are the most strongly Democratic and have shown the largest increase in support for the Democratic candidate since 2004.

http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Candidate-Preferences-of-Religious-Voters-Similar-to-2004-But-Economy-a-Higher-Priority.aspx

they lie on February 16, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Act out of a desire for something better to follow him.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:42 AM

We agree, and I believe I am. :-)

lynncgb on February 16, 2012 at 10:49 AM

So can I put you two cowards on-record as being willing to let the left set the terms of the debate?

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Thank you, gryphon! It’s attitudes like these that are destroying the Republican Party little by little. No backbone and wishy-washy.

mozalf on February 16, 2012 at 10:46 AM

You’re welcome. I think it ought to be obvious to anyone who’s been paying attention, I don’t go for the easy or popular solutions.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:49 AM

That really is overblown. The sad thing is, my problem is obviously just the opposite of yours. My life is, sadly, not interesting enough anymore to be affected by anything you seem to fear so much. LOL I’m not a Santorum supporter, although I will vote for him if he’s the nominee, but I really think you are worrying about nothing.

Night Owl on February 16, 2012 at 10:23 AM

i not worried about that, really. it wont happen. the worse is seeing my president preaching “human vitae” from the bully pulpit. ugh!

nathor on February 16, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Rick Santorum was right about contraception leading to unwanted pregnancies:

The False Promise of Contraception

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

technopeasant on February 16, 2012 at 10:49 AM

You just said you hadn’t seen anyone garrotte themselves before. I figured it’d be pretty entertaining to watch something like that happen en masse.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Ah. So the “all your liberal coworkers and friends” wasn’t directed at me, then…? Good. ;)

Kent18 on February 16, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Act out of a desire for something better to follow him.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:42 AM

We agree, and I believe I am. :-)

lynncgb on February 16, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Well I have a very specific and objective view of what I personally want to accomplish. And not everyone will agree with me, I’m sure. But 2012 will ultimately be a referendum on whether there’s anything left in America worth salvaging.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Just keep saying the same crap over and over again and someone might actually begin to believe that it matters./

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:44 AM

So take your approach, then?

changer1701 on February 16, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Ah. So the “all your liberal coworkers and friends” wasn’t directed at me, then…? Good. ;)

Kent18 on February 16, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Noooooo! Gawd, no! But surely you must have at least a few liberal coworkers and/or friends, neh? Doesn’t everyone?

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:51 AM

I can play this game:

If Romney wins, coffee, tea, and alcohol will be illegal.

flyfisher on February 16, 2012 at 10:25 AM

an we will have polygamy legal, just for mormons of course…. :)

nathor on February 16, 2012 at 10:52 AM

So take your approach, then?

changer1701 on February 16, 2012 at 10:51 AM

I’m not clandestine about my desire to change the national conversation. :P

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:52 AM

I sure as Hades hope that Rick Santorum doesn’t consider a putz like Romney for VP. Blech! Maybe for the Dept. of Treasury since that seems to be his claim to fame, but not much else.

Then isn’t Romney’s “claim to fame” only the single most important factor going into this election?

It’s no wonder that Rick Santorum is ahead. People are vetting the candidates as they should – contrary to the “don’t pay attention to the man behind the curtain” method of the republican establishment. And the cream is rising to the top. Bravo!

mozalf on February 16, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Hmmmm.

Romney has been being vetted since 2007. And he still has managed to amass the greatest number of delegates and popular votes (by far!) during this Primary cycle.

Santorum seems to be the one who hasn’t been vetted yet… the Anyone But Romney crowd are the ones seeming to say “don’t pay attention to the man behind the curtain!).

Just my observations. You are more than welcome to disagree!

RightWay79 on February 16, 2012 at 10:54 AM

tbrickert on February 16, 2012 at 10:25 AM

your gonna need a bigger bumper!

rik on February 16, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Count all the ABR’s on Hot Air, multiply by 10, and Romney has 1000 times more raw votes in the primary. He also has three times the delegates.

csdeven on February 16, 2012 at 9:37 AM

..I humbly submit, while you might be correct, the “resistance is futile” meme might not win (us) many friends if/when Romney wins the nomination. Remember, we all have to work together to remove ABO no matter the nominee.

Although, Mitt still was a factor to be dealt with for Santorum, Perry, Gingrich, Santorum.

The War Planner on February 16, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Romney has been being vetted since 2007. And he still has managed to amass the greatest number of delegates and popular votes (by far!) during this Primary cycle.

Which, let’s face it, is still nowhere near the majority of all delegates he’d need to secure the nomination without a brokered convention. Santorum is absolutely a legit player, and will be until at least Super Tuesday.

Santorum seems to be the one who hasn’t been vetted yet… the Anyone But Romney crowd are the ones seeming to say “don’t pay attention to the man behind the curtain!).

Just my observations. You are more than welcome to disagree!

RightWay79 on February 16, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Thanks for your permission to disagree. And don’t blame Santorum’s current supporters for how lousy this field is. The good candidates get drummed out or decide not to run at all.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Rick Santorum was right about contraception leading to unwanted pregnancies:

The False Promise of Contraception

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

technopeasant on February 16, 2012 at 10:49 AM

from economy to contraception… gop moving backwards from the main concern of the voters to issues that are not even in the radar.

nathor on February 16, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Although, Mitt still was a factor to be dealt with for Santorum, Perry, Gingrich, Santorum.

The War Planner on February 16, 2012 at 10:58 AM

I personally believe that a large part of Santorum’s appeal at this point is that after all the sniping that went on between Newt and Mitt, it looks more and more like Santorum is taking the high road. I’m not sure how fair that is, but it does seem to be a consensus.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 11:02 AM

csdeven on February 16, 2012 at 10:39 AM

that is why he signed the assault weapons ban right ???
-Fail

conservative tarheel on February 16, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Thanks for your permission to disagree. And don’t blame Santorum’s current supporters for how lousy this field is. The good candidates get drummed out or decide not to run at all.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:59 AM

It wasn’t so much “granting permission” as it was my promise to not think less of someone who doesn’t agree with me.

Just trying to show good form. ;-)

RightWay79 on February 16, 2012 at 11:04 AM

It wasn’t so much “granting permission” as it was my promise to not think less of someone who doesn’t agree with me.

Just trying to show good form. ;-)

RightWay79 on February 16, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Well, since you put it that way, thanks for not thinking less of me. :P

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 11:07 AM

I can play this game:

If Romney wins, coffee, tea, and alcohol will be illegal.

flyfisher on February 16, 2012 at 10:25 AM

an we will have polygamy legal, just for mormons of course…. :)

nathor on February 16, 2012 at 10:52 AM

I only need my one wife, but I need lots of coffee and tea.

flyfisher on February 16, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Clinton accurately (for once) stated (paraphrase) that “40% of the people will vote both for and against me NO MATTER WHAT I DO. Therefore my job is to get a majority of the uncommitted 20%.”

Therein lies the Republican predicament. Republican primaries tend to pit conservative Republicans vs. Republicans who tend to range from slightly conservative to moderate. Unfortunately few (if any) of the 20% of the swing voters cast their votes in Republican primaries and thus the results of these primaries do not in any way indicate that the winner will do well in a national election.

Gingrich is, to put it mildly, abrasive. Combine a high “dislikeable factor” with philandering and murky dealings and you get an electoral disaster. But Santorum may not fare much better. He was defeated for re-election in Pa. by 17 big points-indicating that somehow he had lost his “mojo” with the voters. Did the swing voters desert him? Or was it that his own core voters stayed at home-angered at perceived liberal voting agendas such as House Resolution 47-to increase the national debt limit? Combining a dismal defeat with lots of inexperience is not a recipe for success, I should think.Unfortunately, that leaves, by default, the extremely moderate Romney. True, Romney would probably lose to Obama, if the election were held next week. But I think, of all three men still left standing, Romney has by far the best chance in November.

MaiDee on February 16, 2012 at 11:08 AM

For November, the bottom line is this: it will be much easier to get conservatives to vote for Romney than to get independents to vote for Santorum.

Either we want to defeat Obama, or we don’t.

Santorum = disaster.

matthew8787 on February 16, 2012 at 11:10 AM

1. Romneycare … Wont matter in the general as the SCOTUS will have decided it’s fate.
2. Gun grabber Wrong. His legislation received pro-gun support.
3. Global warming true believer Perhaps
4. tax fee raising So what? many of those fees had not been adjusted for over 20 years. And they are use fees.

csdeven on February 16, 2012 at 10:39 AM

What happens if SCOTUS finds Obamacare constitutional? Romney has based his whole argument on repealing it on the fact that it is unconstitutional. Does Romney roll over if SCOTUS saying that it passes constitutional muster? I’m sure he does. So, the number one goal of the next Republican president is not something that Romney even has a plan to address. Either SCOTUS knocks it down or we’re stuck with it? That’s not the position that I’m looking for in a candidate.

I don’t know what you mean by “pro-gun” support, but that doesn’t negate the fact that he proudly signed an “assault” weapon ban. He is a gun grabber, plain and simple, despite what some groups may say. That is almost as lame as saying the mandate is conservative because Heritage once upon a time proposed considering one. These groups do not define conservatism and they are not infallible. (Which I’m sure you’d admit in any instance, of which I’m sure there are many, that Romney implemented a plan inconsistent with what Heritage or your “pro-gun” group supported.)

besser tot als rot on February 16, 2012 at 11:11 AM

True, Romney would probably lose to Obama, if the election were held next week. But I think, of all three men still left standing, Romney has by far the best chance in November.

MaiDee on February 16, 2012 at 11:08 AM

What’s going to change between now and November?

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Insistence is futile! Both Willard and Ricky are big losers and fair minded people might argue about who would rack up the largest historic defeat (in my view Santorum) so perhaps those who really want some chance of a GOP win in November might start of thinking of ways to get their favorite to drop out and free his delegates say at the end of March at which time it should be clear that the circus would continue generating only hurt for the eventual down ticket candidates. This is the easiest, and probably only, way to force a brokered convention.

Annar on February 16, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Hey look at it this way, if we nominate Santorum maybe we’ll put the GOP out of its misery when 20% of the right votes third party leaving the Rick with 25% of the vote.

snoopicus on February 16, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Count all the ABR’s on Hot Air, multiply by 10, and Romney has 1000 times more raw votes in the primary. He also has three times the delegates.

csdeven on February 16, 2012 at 9:37 AM

I love the Romney supporter argument: your vote and support doesn’t matter.

besser tot als rot on February 16, 2012 at 11:14 AM

What’s going to change between now and November?

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Romney’s opinion. On everything. Twice. ;)

Kent18 on February 16, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Insistence is futile! Both Willard and Ricky are big losers and fair minded people might argue about who would rack up the largest historic defeat (in my view Santorum) so perhaps those who really want some chance of a GOP win in November might start of thinking of ways to get their favorite to drop out and free his delegates say at the end of March at which time it should be clear that the circus would continue generating only hurt for the eventual down ticket candidates. This is the easiest, and probably only, way to force a brokered convention.

Annar on February 16, 2012 at 11:13 AM

But you can’t force a brokered convention. There is no way to do it, by your own explanation. You can only vote.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 11:15 AM

that is why he signed the assault weapons ban right ???

conservative tarheel on February 16, 2012 at 11:04 AM

The hunters of MA had restrictions removed and eased. It was a compromise that benefited both sides. In a blue state, that is quite an accomplishment.

csdeven on February 16, 2012 at 11:16 AM

For November, the bottom line is this: it will be much easier to get conservatives to vote for Romney than to get independents to vote for Santorum.

Either we want to defeat Obama, or we don’t.

Santorum = disaster.

matthew8787 on February 16, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Normally I’d say that is true, but I think we’re approaching the point of no return with many cons. The ABR tide is strong, and I think it’s likely that will have a spillover effect in the general. It seems that people would genuinely prefer to go down with Santorum than possibly win with Romney.

changer1701 on February 16, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4