PPP: Santorum up by 10 among election-day voters in MI

posted at 8:40 am on February 28, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

How close will tonight’s contests in Arizona and Michigan be?  The Arizona primary looks so much like a blowout for Mitt Romney that the Arizona Republic didn’t bother to write a front-page story about it, only offering a not about checking the paper’s website for election results later tonight.  Michigan will be the battleground tonight, and Public Policy Polling says that Rick Santorum may have recaptured the momentum over the weekend — but with a twist:

It’s always good to be cautious with one night poll numbers, but momentum seems to be swinging in Santorum’s direction. Romney led with those interviewed on Sunday, but Santorum has a 39-34 advantage with folks polled on Monday. The best sign that things have gone back toward Santorum might be that with those polled today who hadn’t already voted, Santorum’s advantage was 41-31.

Much has been made of Democratic efforts to turn out the vote for Santorum and we see evidence that’s actually happening. Romney leads with actual Republican voters, 43-38. But Santorum’s up 47-10 with Democratic voters, and even though they’re only 8% of the likely electorate that’s enough to put him over the top. The big question now is whether those folks will actually bother to show up and vote tomorrow.

It’s not all due to Operation Chaos, or Insanity, or whatever it’s called.  Romney may have booted Michigan over the weekend:

Romney hasn’t made a good last impression on Michigan voters. His favorability in Sunday interviews was 57/36, but in Monday interviews it was only 47/48. Santorum saw little difference in his reviews between the two days: 54/39 on Sunday and 56/36 on Monday. If Romney does indeed end up losing tomorrow there’s not much doubt he will have blown it in the final 48 hours.

It might also be that Santorum has been emphasizing economics the last few days in Michigan.  He took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to compare tax plans.  Santorum borrowed Newt Gingrich’s criticism that Romney only wants to tinker around the edges, and added a swipe at Romney’s “last-minute conversion” to tax reform as well as repeating the accusation of Romney being an “Occupy Wall Street” candidate:

Meanwhile, my opponent in the Republican primaries, Mitt Romney, had a last-minute conversion. Attempting to distract from his record of tax and fee increases as governor of Massachusetts, poor job creation, and aggressive pursuit of earmarks, he now says he wants to follow my lead and lower individual as well as corporate marginal tax rates.

It’s a good start. But it doesn’t go nearly far enough. He says his proposed tax cuts would be revenue neutral and, borrowing the language of Occupy Wall Street, promises the top 1% will pay for the cuts. No pro-growth tax policy there, just more Obama-style class warfare.

Will this be enough to carry Michigan over the lead Romney presumably has built in early voting?  Having a ten-point advantage on Election Day would be significant if it remains, especially since only 17% of PPP’s sample say they have voted early — but Romney has a 27-point lead among them, 56/29.  Assuming that the Monday-only numbers and the early voting figures from PPP are accurate and predictive, a turnout like the one in 2008 would result in a narrow victory for Santorum, 38.9% to 35.2%.  That would produce a nearly even split in delagates, but give Santorum a boost heading into Super Tuesday.  If he can’t close the deal in Michigan, then next week will be a very tough sell.


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

Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy and corporate raider.

gracie on February 28, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Corporate raider == I am jealous of his wealth and intelligence.

antisense on February 28, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Are you really asking for my opinion or you just trying to diss Santorum?

txmomof6 on February 28, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Yes, I’m really asking…

changer1701 on February 28, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Regardless of the outcome in MI, I think we are going to see a Stop Santorum-type of reaction
Priscilla on February 28, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Let’s hope so…sorry guys, I have to go with the “establishment”on this one.

lynncgb on February 28, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Turns out politicians who call themselves conservatives can oppose the bailouts and then enjoin Democrats to raid Republican primaries on the basis of their support for bailouts–and still remain the darling of conservative voters. Who knew?
troyriser_gopftw on February 28, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Who would have thought there would ever be a Republican presidential candidate who would align himself with the Daily Kos? What’s next – an endorsement from Michael Moore?

whatcat on February 28, 2012 at 10:44 AM

On Sunday they polled

Romney/Sanctorum favorables 57% – 54% pretty even
Romney/Sanctorum unfavorables 36% – 39% pretty even

Showing Romney with a 2% lead for Romney. Given the slight Romney advantage, that would make it pretty close.

On Monday they polled

Romney/Sanctorum favorables 47% – 56% Heavy Sanctorum advantage
Romney/Sanctorum unfavorables 48% – 36% Heavy Sanctorum advantage

Showing Sanctorum with a 1% lead over Romney. Given the heavy Sanctorum advantage, it appears the trend is still going with Romney.

There are other advantages for Sanctorum also. More liberals were polled, less TEA Party, more ideologues, less fiscal cons.

It’s gonna be close.

csdeven on February 28, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Are you really asking for my opinion or you just trying to diss Santorum?

txmomof6 on February 28, 2012 at 10:37 AM

If he’s not asking I will. What exactly are Santorum’s qualifications for President? This is the same problem I had with Bachman – ZERO executive and leadership experience. When such a big argument was made against Obama specifically because of this, why would we nominate someone equally lacking in this area?

And with four years as President under his belt now, Obama has Santorum crushed in the leadership qualification department…

gotsig on February 28, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Corporate raider == I am jealous of his wealth and intelligence.
antisense on February 28, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Not really. I’m very smart and very rich and a very nice person. I am not jealous of anyone as I am happy right where I am.

gracie on February 28, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Let’s hope so…sorry guys, I have to go with the “establishment”on this one.

lynncgb on February 28, 2012 at 10:43 AM

I have a nagging feeling that we all are a party in a 5-dimensional chess game played by the GOP leadership who escalated Santorum for the sole purpose of turning ‘Anyone But Romney’ into ‘Anyone But Santorum’ when Gingrich finally throws in the towel. Then the Frankentorum beast found its venue among the remnants of the Tea Party social wing, and went out of control.

Archivarix on February 28, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Guess what? Democrat operatives have been predominatantly financing attacks on Romney rather than Santorum during the GOP primaries. They fear a Romney candidacy more, because they see him as the stronger opponent to Obama. They have put their money on defeating Romney while at the same time pushing media rhetoric that he is the weaker GOP challenger. This two-pronged attack will only work, if GOP voters allow themselves to be duped by the two-faced liberal attack machine. They want to help us choose the weakest GOP candidate, so that Obama has the best chance of finishing his assault on the US Constitution and capitalism. Besides that, which one of the GOP candidates’ backgrounds best reflects President Reagan’s in his successful campaign that sent President Carter packing during similar tough economic times. Is it Santorum or Gingrich who have spent their entire careers as Washington insiders? Or is it Romney, a man who has practical executive experience gained while governing a highly liberal state and successful real-world business experience? For those who are really paying attention, the answer is pretty obvious. One other thing. The Michigan primary is totally meaningless. The race is so close that Romney and Santorum will essentially split the Michigan delegates, no matter who comes out on top. So, move along. Nothing to see here.

NuclearPhysicist on February 28, 2012 at 10:48 AM

If he’s not asking I will. What exactly are Santorum’s qualifications for President?… And with four years as President under his belt now, Obama has Santorum crushed in the leadership qualification department…

gotsig on February 28, 2012 at 10:45 AM

He doesn’t tolerate the butt play…good enough for me

DHChron on February 28, 2012 at 10:48 AM

5-dimensional chess game played by the GOP leadership

That’s giving them a lot of credit considering they haven’t missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity since about 2006.

teke184 on February 28, 2012 at 10:49 AM

It’s gonna be close.
csdeven on February 28, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Good to see u back being reasonable. You have been straying of late so much so that I stopped reading what you were posting. Looks like u got better.

gracie on February 28, 2012 at 10:51 AM

That’s giving them a lot of credit considering they haven’t missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity since about 2006.

teke184 on February 28, 2012 at 10:49 AM

I kinda implied, by the result we witness, that they are not particularly good at that.

Archivarix on February 28, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Hot Air is busy trying to sway the Michigan voters at the last minute to vote for their guy Rick Santorum. Unfortunately, Rick Santorum will lose tonight by a small margin.

If Rick Santorum wins tonight, he wins only because he couldn’t get enough Republicans to vote for him but had to make Robocalls to Democrats to get support.

Conservative Samizdat on February 28, 2012 at 10:52 AM

And with four years as President under his belt now, Obama has Santorum crushed in the leadership qualification department…

gotsig on February 28, 2012 at 10:45 AM

He doesn’t tolerate the butt play…good enough for me

DHChron on February 28, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Lol. Four years as president under his belt.
You can’t be serious.

RedCrow on February 28, 2012 at 10:52 AM

The only real story here is the absolute, complete debunking of the myth that Democrats want to face Romney in the general.

gotsig on February 28, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Absolutely correct.

cicerone on February 28, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Or perhaps it’s because the Democrats don’t care who the nominee is as long as the race continues on while the candidates try and pull each other further down into the mud. By August the nomination won’t be worth spit the way it’s going. Now it’s becoming a clown show with the robocalls to Dems.

independentvoice on February 28, 2012 at 10:53 AM

If he’s not asking I will. What exactly are Santorum’s qualifications for President? This is the same problem I had with Bachman – ZERO executive and leadership experience. When such a big argument was made against Obama specifically because of this, why would we nominate someone equally lacking in this area?

And with four years as President under his belt now, Obama has Santorum crushed in the leadership qualification department…

gotsig on February 28, 2012 at 10:45 AM

I was asking, and I agree…I don’t know why he should be President. I also had the same issues with Bachmann…I wasn’t even sure why she ran, frankly.

changer1701 on February 28, 2012 at 10:54 AM

That said, college is screwing everyone because of student loans, skyrocketing cost, union benefits for employees, and people putting it on a pedestal. They also offer stupid majors that just mislead and confuse people into fields that will never generate a good income. You must think of it as a business and not an institution and it will make more sense.

antisense on February 28, 2012 at 10:41 AM

The trades are undervalued. In fact, the whole notion of work is undervalued. I was always taught to respect those who work hard to make an honest living, whether janitor or factory hand, to never look down on someone for what they did no matter how high I go or how much I make in my chosen profession. Honest work matters. Ironically, the more the Left’s views permeate our culture, the more snobbery I encounter and the wider class distinctions seem to become.

troyriser_gopftw on February 28, 2012 at 10:55 AM

You are not a conservative if you would not vote for Romney. Plain and simple.

(snip)

milcus on February 28, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Yer kidding, right? So, in milcüs world Mittens is a conservative?
OooooooooooooK
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 28, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Yes, I’m really asking…

changer1701 on February 28, 2012 at 10:42 AM

1) He understands that the danger that is ObamaCare is an attack on individual liberty, IMHO. Romney either doesn’t get it or doesn’t care. Gingrich was for individual mandates at one time and although he has admitted, unlike Romney that they are a bad idea, this admission strikes me as opportunistic in the current political climate as opposed to coming from core beliefs.
2) He will appoint better justices than the other candidates, IMHO.
3) He has more foreign policy understanding than Romney.
4) He has a chance of swinging his home state to the R column, which the other 3 do not. Obama has a very hard time getting to 270 without Pennsylvania.
5) He strikes me as someone who understands Reaganomics better than Romney.
6) He strikes me as someone who will stand firm when he is confronted with opposition in Congress and the MSM as opposed to folding under political pressure.

txmomof6 on February 28, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Lol. Four years as president under his belt.
You can’t be serious.

RedCrow on February 28, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Ok, so it won’t be a full four years, but my point stands. What executive leadership experience does Santorum have?

gotsig on February 28, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Lol. Four years as president under his belt.
You can’t be serious.

RedCrow on February 28, 2012 at 10:52 AM

hehehehe…very astute :) no, I can’t be

DHChron on February 28, 2012 at 10:57 AM

I also had the same issues with Bachmann…I wasn’t even sure why she ran, frankly.

changer1701 on February 28, 2012 at 10:54 AM

To upend Palin, quite obviously. The reason Bachmann caught fire in the beginning was because she was pimped by the establishment as “thinking man’s Palin”. She could have actually been a formidable contender if not for the shrill debate tone and, of course, Gardasil fiasco.

Archivarix on February 28, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Ok, so it won’t be a full four years, but my point stands. What executive leadership experience does Santorum have?

gotsig on February 28, 2012 at 10:56 AM

He stated on numerous occasions that he will oppose leading from behind.

Archivarix on February 28, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Or, do we have Democrats stacking the deck?

rplat on February 28, 2012 at 10:58 AM

the Frankentorum beast found its venue among the remnants of the Tea Party social wing
Archivarix on February 28, 2012 at 10:47 AM

I’m not smart enough to know if there is some sort of political chess going on here, but Santy pretty much lost me all on his own. I just don’t see him getting much support beyond the SoCons.

lynncgb on February 28, 2012 at 10:59 AM

He stated on numerous occasions that he will oppose leading from behind.

Archivarix on February 28, 2012 at 10:58 AM

I see what you did there

DHChron on February 28, 2012 at 11:00 AM

txmomof6 on February 28, 2012 at 10:55 AM

All subjective. Were I hiring someone for a job who’s resume was full of those types of non-concrete qualifications they would never get an interview.

Have we forgotten that we are electing someone to the most difficult, challenging, and important leadership position in the world here? Might be nice if they actually had some leadership experience…

gotsig on February 28, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Wow. Reading through this thread I can clearly see where the term “Rethuglican” came from. Post after post after post of vicious, snarling attack-dog rhetoric about how terribly uncouth the campaigns are and not one discussion of any point of merit. There’s nothing polite about politics and all the Republican candidates have flung a lot of mud. Drop the freaking ad hominems already and get back to the issues.

Which candidate will help America more? Well, clearly EITHER candidate is better than Obama, so it comes down to your vision of the future. Are you more interested in a more moderate business-savvy leader who has shown he can work with Liberal lawmakers? Then go with Romney. If, on the other hand, you think that moderation is what got us here and that America must immediately and drastically change course to a much more Conservative nature, then vote for Santorum.

But no matter whom you support, start building the case against the current administration, not against each other. Attacking one another’s character based on their political place in the spectrum is helping the Left. Remember, whichever Republican candidate you support you’re well to the right of the current Administration, the media and the Leftist sites like DK. Santorum supporters and Romney supporters have FAR more in common with each other than they do the Left.

Those continuing to stir up animosity within our ranks are aiding and abetting the Left, knowingly or not. So just stop it. Identify the issues, identify your candidate’s position on them, present your case and quit the sniping. And after the dust settles, get out there and support the Republican candidate, because no matter who wins, they’re better than what we’ve got.

I’m tired of this internecine warfare; we’re not swaying any independents with this crap.

I’ve gotta go save AJs country. I hope you all will help.

AJsDaddie on February 28, 2012 at 11:01 AM

He stated on numerous occasions that he will oppose leading from behind.

Archivarix on February 28, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Very well done. :-)

gotsig on February 28, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Ok, so it won’t be a full four years, but my point stands. What executive leadership experience does Santorum have?

gotsig on February 28, 2012 at 10:56 AM

My point wasn’t that you got the time span incorrect.
I couldn’t believe you could call what Obama’s done “leadership”.

(Oh, and I voted for Romney today in MI, but I’ll take Santorum over Obama, anyday. (I’ll take a dead, rotting log over Obama.))

RedCrow on February 28, 2012 at 11:05 AM

1) He understands that the danger that is ObamaCare is an attack on individual liberty, IMHO. Romney either doesn’t get it or doesn’t care. Gingrich was for individual mandates at one time and although he has admitted, unlike Romney that they are a bad idea, this admission strikes me as opportunistic in the current political climate as opposed to coming from core beliefs.
2) He will appoint better justices than the other candidates, IMHO.
3) He has more foreign policy understanding than Romney.
4) He has a chance of swinging his home state to the R column, which the other 3 do not. Obama has a very hard time getting to 270 without Pennsylvania.
5) He strikes me as someone who understands Reaganomics better than Romney.
6) He strikes me as someone who will stand firm when he is confronted with opposition in Congress and the MSM as opposed to folding under political pressure.

txmomof6 on February 28, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Fair enough. Thanks..I think your 4th point is the strongest in his favor, as he may indeed put PA somewhat into play.

changer1701 on February 28, 2012 at 11:07 AM

1) He understands that the danger that is ObamaCare is an attack on individual liberty, IMHO. Romney either doesn’t get it or doesn’t care. Gingrich was for individual mandates at one time and although he has admitted, unlike Romney that they are a bad idea, this admission strikes me as opportunistic in the current political climate as opposed to coming from core beliefs.
2) He will appoint better justices than the other candidates, IMHO.
3) He has more foreign policy understanding than Romney.
4) He has a chance of swinging his home state to the R column, which the other 3 do not. Obama has a very hard time getting to 270 without Pennsylvania.
5) He strikes me as someone who understands Reaganomics better than Romney.
6) He strikes me as someone who will stand firm when he is confronted with opposition in Congress and the MSM as opposed to folding under political pressure.

txmomof6 on February 28, 2012 at 10:55 AM

1) That, I’ll grant you; individual mandate is an abomination. However, until Santorum calls for repeal of EMTALA, any talk about fixing healthcare is a bunch of baloney.

2) Santorum voted for Sotomayor’s confirmation while Romney has Robert Bork as his top judicial adviser. Are you sure?

3) I have seen zero testimony on that. So far, the only foreign policy I saw promoted by Santorum is that of Vatican.

4) Santorum had his rear handed to him in Pennsylvania. What can possibly make you think that he’s a net positive there? Au contraire, Romney is a booster in New Hampshire, Maine, and – considering Christie’s support – possibly even New Jersey.

5) Santorum was a reliable rubber stamp for Bush’s spend-all-you-can fiscal and regulatory policies. Though Romney is no supply-side stalwart, either, he’s clearly no worse.

6) See #5.

Archivarix on February 28, 2012 at 11:07 AM

My point wasn’t that you got the time span incorrect.
I couldn’t believe you could call what Obama’s done “leadership”.

Fair enough – point well taken.

gotsig on February 28, 2012 at 11:08 AM

All subjective. Were I hiring someone for a job who’s resume was full of those types of non-concrete qualifications they would never get an interview.

Have we forgotten that we are electing someone to the most difficult, challenging, and important leadership position in the world here? Might be nice if they actually had some leadership experience…

gotsig on February 28, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Of course it is all subjective, I was asked my opinion and I gave it. I already said I didn’t think Santorum was the best candidate in the abstract, simply the best of the four left standing. I know what I think his weaknesses are, I simply don’t choose to point them out in a blog which liberals read. Your argument that we need someone with leadership experience is lacking one element though. We need someone with the right leadership experience. Romney has executive experience, but what he did when he was in a leadership position was wrong, IMHO.

txmomof6 on February 28, 2012 at 11:09 AM

I’ve gotta go save AJs country. I hope you all will help.

AJsDaddie on February 28, 2012 at 11:01 AM

dang…party pooper.

Santz ain’t taking us anywhere conservative in nature…the guy spends more than Pelosi on Visa IPO’s

DHChron on February 28, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Santorum lost PA by 18%. Far worse than any other republican candidate in recent memory, including McCain – it isn’t even close actually.

The idea that he can put the state in play is beyond bizarre. The wealthy and socially moderate Philly and Pittsburgh suburbs abandoned Santorum massively – that’s why he lost by so many, Republicans need that demographic to compete statewide in PA – and they aren’t voting for him anytime soon.

joana on February 28, 2012 at 11:11 AM

He understands that the danger that is ObamaCare is an attack on individual liberty, IMHO. Romney either doesn’t get it or doesn’t care. Gingrich was for individual mandates at one time and although he has admitted, unlike Romney that they are a bad idea, this admission strikes me as opportunistic in the current political climate as opposed to coming from core beliefs.
2) He will appoint better justices than the other candidates, IMHO.
3) He has more foreign policy understanding than Romney.
4) He has a chance of swinging his home state to the R column, which the other 3 do not. Obama has a very hard time getting to 270 without Pennsylvania.
5) He strikes me as someone who understands Reaganomics better than Romney.
6) He strikes me as someone who will stand firm when he is confronted with opposition in Congress and the MSM as opposed to folding under political pressure.

txmomof6 on February 28, 2012 at 10:55 AM

1) That, I’ll grant you; individual mandate is an abomination. However, until Santorum calls for repeal of EMTALA, any talk about fixing healthcare is a bunch of baloney.

2) Santorum voted for Sotomayor’s confirmation while Romney has Robert Bork as his top judicial adviser. Are you sure?

3) I have seen zero testimony on that. So far, the only foreign policy I saw promoted by Santorum is that of Vatican.

4) Santorum had his rear handed to him in Pennsylvania. What can possibly make you think that he’s a net positive there? Au contraire, Romney is a booster in New Hampshire, Maine, and – considering Christie’s support – possibly even New Jersey.

5) Santorum was a reliable rubber stamp for Bush’s spend-all-you-can fiscal and regulatory policies. Though Romney is no supply-side stalwart, either, he’s clearly no worse.

6) See #5.

Archivarix on February 28, 2012 at 11:07 AM

+100, not so much for the individual points, but for the actual conversation. This is what we need more of!

AJsDaddie on February 28, 2012 at 11:13 AM

To upend Palin, quite obviously. The reason Bachmann caught fire in the beginning was because she was pimped by the establishment as “thinking man’s Palin”. She could have actually been a formidable contender if not for the shrill debate tone and, of course, Gardasil fiasco.

Archivarix on February 28, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Maybe. But had Palin jumped in, she would’ve taken most of Bachmann’s support. I actually think it was Perry that “robbed” Palin of her spot in the field.

changer1701 on February 28, 2012 at 11:15 AM

If Santorum wins MI Arizona is almost meaningless .It will not mean that Romney will not be the nominee but it also means that this fight now has over a 50% chance to go to the convention with out a clear winner.

logman1 on February 28, 2012 at 11:16 AM

… Romney has executive experience, but what he did when he was in a leadership position was wrong, IMHO.

txmomof6 on February 28, 2012 at 11:09 AM

I disagree with you here, especially with regard to what he did in his private sector leadership. But I do respect the sincerity of your response.

gotsig on February 28, 2012 at 11:17 AM

+100, not so much for the individual points, but for the actual conversation. This is what we need more of!

AJsDaddie on February 28, 2012 at 11:13 AM

wait a sec! I though Archvarix was a nutball

DHChron on February 28, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Santorum is a ckicken sh!t. Going after Dem voters (all in the name of Chaos) in an effort to win the GOP nomination. His pitiful excuse of “shouldn’t we want Democratic voters” was so lame, because he knows they don’t like him and only want him to be the nominee becaus ehtey think they can beat him.

This truly a classic case af “laying with the fleas”.

Tater Salad on February 28, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Maybe. But had Palin jumped in, she would’ve taken most of Bachmann’s support. I actually think it was Perry that “robbed” Palin of her spot in the field.

changer1701 on February 28, 2012 at 11:15 AM

I always cherished a theory that Perry and Palin had an unspoken – or, quite possibly, negotiated – agreement that one of them will jump in, and the other will support from the sidelines. If Palin truly wanted to run, she should have thrown her hat into the ring earlier. As weak as the field is this cycle, she’d run over the opposition like a snow plow; it’s the general election that she’d have trouble with.

Archivarix on February 28, 2012 at 11:20 AM

If Santorum wins MI Arizona is almost meaningless .It will not mean that Romney will not be the nominee but it also means that this fight now has over a 50% chance to go to the convention with out a clear winner.

logman1 on February 28, 2012 at 11:16 AM

How do you figure? If Romney wins or loses by as little as one vote, it only may mean the difference in one delegate, whereas AZ is winner take-all with 29 delegates.

Tater Salad on February 28, 2012 at 11:22 AM

troyriser_gopftw on February 28, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Going to college doesn’t mean you do not value work. If you are content to be a ditch-digger, that is fine. It is not for everyone. In today’s world, you are at a far disadvantaged position should you choose not to go.

Next thing you know it, you are an unemployed UAW worker being robocalled by Santorum.

antisense on February 28, 2012 at 11:22 AM

1) That, I’ll grant you; individual mandate is an abomination. However, until Santorum calls for repeal of EMTALA, any talk about fixing healthcare is a bunch of baloney.

2) Santorum voted for Sotomayor’s confirmation while Romney has Robert Bork as his top judicial adviser. Are you sure?

3) I have seen zero testimony on that. So far, the only foreign policy I saw promoted by Santorum is that of Vatican.

4) Santorum had his rear handed to him in Pennsylvania. What can possibly make you think that he’s a net positive there? Au contraire, Romney is a booster in New Hampshire, Maine, and – considering Christie’s support – possibly even New Jersey.

5) Santorum was a reliable rubber stamp for Bush’s spend-all-you-can fiscal and regulatory policies. Though Romney is no supply-side stalwart, either, he’s clearly no worse.

6) See #5.

Archivarix on February 28, 2012 at 11:07 AM

1) One step at a time on EMTALA. I agree it should be repealed, but getting rid of ObamneyCare has to happen first.
2) Romney also has Sununu on his team, can you say David Souter? Santorum has a law degree (which isn’t always a good thing) but in my opinion will help him in evaluating potential court nominees as opposed to relying on advisers.
3) He served on the Foreign Relations Committee for 10 years, Romney did not.
4) Have you seen how Obama is polling in PA lately? A favorite son who is a Catholic, from the working class, is a strong 2nd Amendment supporter has a better chance with the bitter clingers than Obama or Romney in the Keystone state.
5) Romney buys into the argument that it is okay to treat those who earn above $250,000 differently in the tax code. Santorum has a good record on taxes unlike Romney.
6) Romney folded when confronted with a liberal House and Senate and didn’t even try to run for reelection in a tough election year.

txmomof6 on February 28, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Voice – “this is Barrack Obama and you should vote for Rick Santorum, because he would be easier to beat in the fall”.

Rick Santorum’s voice ” this message paid for by the campaign to elect Rick Santorum”.

Tater Salad on February 28, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Here in my area turn out appears to be very low. I assume that benefits Romney with the absentee ballot advantage?

dmarie on February 28, 2012 at 11:26 AM

If Santorum wins, it will be because of mischief from Democrat activists trying to foist the weaker candidate on us.

The fact that Santorum has joined in on this effort by specifically contacting registered Democrats and telling them to vote in our GOP primary is absolutely disgusting.

The GOP needs to wake up and realize the American people are not going to vote for a firebrand dingbat who wants to make birth control among married people a campaign issue or calls mainline Protestants non-Christians.

BradTank on February 28, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Good for Santorum. It’s obvious he can appeal to Reagan Democrats; Romney cannot.

Norwegian on February 28, 2012 at 11:29 AM

RCP polling has Romney thrashing the “conservative” Richard Santy in ARIZONA- If you true conservatives want to bitterly cling to the “un-winnable” socialist state of Michigan and ally with Democrite voters who will vote for Ocommie anyway- go for it. PT Barnum loves you.
.
But Poodle skirt is not winning conservative voters and seems to be more a liberal fave.

FlaMurph on February 28, 2012 at 11:32 AM

4) Have you seen how Obama is polling in PA lately? A favorite son who is a Catholic, from the working class, is a strong 2nd Amendment supporter has a better chance with the bitter clingers than Obama or Romney in the Keystone state.

You have no idea about the political and electoral demographics of PA.

1 – Who’s the favorite son?

2 – Santorum has always underperformed with Catholics, in PA and everywhere. Specter, a Jewish, would always do better with Catholics than Santorum. Same phenomenon we’ve been seeing in this primary: Catholics don’t like to vote for Santorum. There has been plenty of talking about this, but as a Catholic myself I do agree with those who say that Santorum simply doesn’t come across as a Catholic. We have a tradition of suppressed enthusiasm in religious issues. Santorum lacks the restraint necessary to appeal to the Catholic base.

3 – The core of the republican voting coalition in PA are the white healthy suburbans in SEPA and Pitts. If you don’t understand this, you won’t understand anything about Pennsylvania politics. PA isn’t even Ohio, let alone a Southern state. You can’t win with a coalition of working class “clingers” and conservatives. There aren’t enough of those voters. Any republican needs the socially moderate/liberal suburbans.

That’s why very fiscally conservative republicans who don’t make a big issue of social issues like Toomey, Corbett or the ’94 Santorum can win while guys who sound like Southern evangelicals like the ’06 Santorum lose by 20. It’s the basic rule of PA politics.

joana on February 28, 2012 at 11:32 AM

RCP polling has Romney thrashing the “conservative” Richard Santy in ARIZONA- If you true conservatives want to bitterly cling to the “un-winnable” socialist state of Michigan and ally with Democrite voters who will vote for Ocommie anyway- go for it. PT Barnum loves you.

You know that AZ has a sizable Mormon population and that Santorum hasn’t bothered competing there, right?

AZ is a Romney-Gingrich match-up while MI is a Romney-Santorum one.

teke184 on February 28, 2012 at 11:33 AM

There is no way dems are voting for Santorum in primary, Mittens was their candidate in my state all the time, except at that point they all voted for Romney, cause they were afraid of Perry. Fact is dems dont go for operation Chaos, they always go for picking their most palatable candidate, and Mittedns is it. The only operation media is running is to obscrue what is really happening, and that is that mittens is the weakest opponent to zero and dems want to face him.

anikol on February 28, 2012 at 11:34 AM

RCP polling has Romney thrashing the “conservative” Richard Santy in ARIZONA- If you true conservatives want to bitterly cling to the “un-winnable” socialist state of Michigan and ally with Democrite voters who will vote for Ocommie anyway- go for it. PT Barnum loves you.
.
But Poodle skirt is not winning conservative voters and seems to be more a liberal fave.

FlaMurph on February 28, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Yawn. Desperation from the Mittbot.

I would be willing to bet that Santorum wins among “very conservative” voters like myself in both AZ and MI.

Norwegian on February 28, 2012 at 11:34 AM

AJsDaddie on February 28, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Very well put!

If Romney wins the nomination, I will begrudgingly, resigningly, and hesistantly, vote for him in the general election. But without much joy or hope for our country. Maybe a little more than if Obama gets re-elected, but not much, because I don’t see much changing under Romney.

So yes, I am hoping Santorum by some chance manages to beat the worldly powers against him. I still think he would offer the best contrast to what Obama is doing to this country, and to Obama himself.
And at least I know Santorum has principles and sticks to them. And yes even the notion that he knows he is accountable to a higher power, and I am not talking about money.

Sterling Holobyte on February 28, 2012 at 11:36 AM

1) One step at a time on EMTALA. I agree it should be repealed, but getting rid of ObamneyCare has to happen first.
2) Romney also has Sununu on his team, can you say David Souter? Santorum has a law degree (which isn’t always a good thing) but in my opinion will help him in evaluating potential court nominees as opposed to relying on advisers.
3) He served on the Foreign Relations Committee for 10 years, Romney did not.
4) Have you seen how Obama is polling in PA lately? A favorite son who is a Catholic, from the working class, is a strong 2nd Amendment supporter has a better chance with the bitter clingers than Obama or Romney in the Keystone state.
5) Romney buys into the argument that it is okay to treat those who earn above $250,000 differently in the tax code. Santorum has a good record on taxes unlike Romney.
6) Romney folded when confronted with a liberal House and Senate and didn’t even try to run for reelection in a tough election year.

txmomof6 on February 28, 2012 at 11:23 AM

1) As much as we all love to hate the mandate, it is the ONLY way to balance the sheet. As long as hospitals are forced at gunpoint to provide services to indigents, they must in turn force healthy people to chip in. EMTALA is the root of evil here, and I wish the candidates spoke more of it.

2) Yep, a point taken; Sununu is a black mark against Romney. Still, I doubt he’d have much say on judicial as long as Bork has Romney’s ear – and I’m sure Bork still carried a huge chip on his shoulder against the progressives.

3) I do not remember any particular achievements of Santorum during those 10 years. Do you? I mean, besides rubber-stamping a costly, useless war and especially an uber-costly, uber-useless “nation building” that followed.

4) Your argument would be good if not for the “favorite son” part. Favorite sons don’t get trounced so soundly. As someone pointed out earlier, Philly suburbs are the key to PA, and those people are no Bible thumpers by any measure.

5) Romney’s proposed tax reform beats Santorum’s by a mile. You’ll do yourself good if you read them. Of course, Ron Paul’s is far superior to both… oh wait, according to Santorum, Romney promised him a cabinet position. How convenient!

5)

Archivarix on February 28, 2012 at 11:36 AM

6) Romney folded when confronted with a liberal House and Senate and didn’t even try to run for reelection in a tough election year.

txmomof6 on February 28, 2012 at 11:23 AM

(cont.)

6) “Folded”? His veto was overridden countless times – and it takes some major balls to veto a legislation knowing that your veto is going to be overridden.

Archivarix on February 28, 2012 at 11:37 AM

I would be willing to bet that Santorum wins among “very conservative” voters like myself in both AZ and MI.

Norwegian on February 28, 2012 at 11:34 AM

You’re just tweaked because Rombo is TOO conservative for the socialists in MICH who have not gone R since Reagan- 30 yrs ago. Mittens is too damn conservative for Pro-labor Michigan

FlaMurph on February 28, 2012 at 11:38 AM

I would be willing to bet that Santorum wins among “very conservative” voters like myself in both AZ and MI.

Norwegian on February 28, 2012 at 11:34 AM

the only very conservative voters who vote Santz are clueless very conservative voters. Congrats.

DHChron on February 28, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Fact is dems dont go for operation Chaos, they always go for picking their most palatable candidate, and Mittedns is it. The only operation media is running is to obscrue what is really happening, and that is that mittens is the weakest opponent to zero and dems want to face him.

anikol on February 28, 2012 at 11:34 AM

That runs counter to what we’ve seen and what Dems have been encouraging. No Democrat I know believes Santorum is a stronger candidate than Romney…they can’t believe Republicans are even thinking about nominating the former, actually.

changer1701 on February 28, 2012 at 11:40 AM

the only very conservative voters who vote Santz are clueless very conservative voters. Congrats.

DHChron on February 28, 2012 at 11:39 AM

The word ‘conservative’ is overused. We need brand new, separate terms for Bible-thumpers and fiscal conservatives. At least foreign-policy conservatives can be referred to as ‘hawks’.

Archivarix on February 28, 2012 at 11:44 AM

the only very conservative voters who vote Santz are clueless very conservative voters. Congrats.

DHChron on February 28, 2012 at 11:39 AM

LOL! WoW, I am so totally impressed by your argument.

Mittbots – Continuing to win conservative friends and influence voters since 2008

Norwegian on February 28, 2012 at 11:46 AM

1) As much as we all love to hate the mandate, it is the ONLY way to balance the sheet. As long as hospitals are forced at gunpoint to provide services to indigents, they must in turn force healthy people to chip in. EMTALA is the root of evil here, and I wish the candidates spoke more of it.

Archivarix on February 28, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Bingo. But no one wants to talk about it because (as one of my liberal buddies puts it) “it would be too heartless for a country as rich as we are to let people die on the streets because they can’t afford medical care.”

gotsig on February 28, 2012 at 11:48 AM

What about Ann Romney donating to Planned Parenthood?

liberal4life on February 28, 2012 at 8:56 AM

Ann Romney once wrote a check to Planned Parenthood for $150, using a checking account she held jointly with Willard.

Emperor Norton on February 28, 2012 at 8:59 AM

But Ed Morrissey and Tina Korbe didn’t endorse Romney; they endorsed Santorum.

Dante on February 28, 2012 at 11:49 AM

LOL! WoW, I am so totally impressed by your argument.

Mittbots – Continuing to win conservative friends and influence voters since 2008

Norwegian on February 28, 2012 at 11:46 AM

the term is Mittiots or Mittler Youth

if you haven’t seen enough evidence of Santy’s big government cred on this thread you’re hopeless

DHChron on February 28, 2012 at 11:51 AM

LOL! WoW, I am so totally impressed by your argument.

Mittbots – Continuing to win conservative friends and influence voters since 2008

Norwegian on February 28, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Because after all, you’re so open to potential influence…

Lose the self righteousness, it’s completely transparent and really pathetic.

gotsig on February 28, 2012 at 11:52 AM

I do think the word conservative is being over used. Clearly santorum is very conservative in his religious views, now if he was just as conservative in his views on governmentenforcing his views, he could consider himself a conservative.

He’s as activist in his religious, or theologigal views as Obama is in his “theology”

Tater Salad on February 28, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Who would have thought there would ever be a Republican presidential candidate who would align himself with the Daily Kos? What’s next – an endorsement from Michael Moore?

whatcat on February 28, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Yes. Pretty much. Michael Moore on Rick Santorum:

“I have to tell you a lot of my Democratic friends will vote for Santorum in something they are calling Operation Hilarity,” Michael Moore said at the end of an interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.

According to the Daily Kos, who launched this campaign, Operation Hilarity is “an opportunity for Democrats to actually help prolong this election a little bit longer because we’ve seen that the longer this drags out, the worse it is for Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum and the best it is for Barack Obama.”

V7_Sport on February 28, 2012 at 11:55 AM

How are you a conservative if you believe in:

1) government picking winners and losers in the tax code?
2) believe in protecting closed shop work rules?
3) believe government should be involved enforcing/implementing theology?

Tater Salad on February 28, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Republicans don’t want to nominate an unelectable homophobic theocrat BIGOT like Rick Santorum. Everyone, including Santorum, knows this, so Rick Santorum is now having to engage in dirty tricks and enlist the help of Democrats in the Michigan primary.

Of course, Democrats and the Obama campaign are eager and willing to lend the bigot Rick Santorum a helping hand in the primary… because Democrats know that Rick Santorum would pose absolutely zero threat to Obama in a general election. Democrats are being encouraged to vote for Rick Santorum in order to boost Obama’s reelection chances. We all know that, the more people learn about the wacko, bigoted, out-of-maintream views of the career politican Rick Santorum, the less inclined they would be to support him. Democrats want to hurt Mitt Romney, the man who can actually defeat Obama.

Everyone knows that A Vote for Rick Santorum in the Primary = A Vote for Obama’s Re-Election.

Rick Santorum as the nominee would be the greatest gift Barack Obama could have hoped for in his campaign for reelection.

For convenience, I’ve included just a small sample of some revealing quotes from the bigot Rick Santorum:

“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does.”

-Rick Santorum, in 2003 supporting a state ban on homosexual activity and defending the idea of bans on non-procreative (e.g., oral, anal) private, consensual sex between adults.

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. [Sex] is supposed to be within marriage. It’s supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal…but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen…This is special and it needs to be seen as special.”

-Rick Santorum

“The state has a
right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statutes they have.”

-Anti-birth control Rick Santorum, happily asserting that states can ban birth control

“The idea is that the state doesn’t have rights to limit individuals’ wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire.”

-Rick Santorum

Santorum Quote:

“This idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do,” Santorum complained to NPR in 2006, “that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues … that is not how traditional conservatives view the world.”

bluegill on February 28, 2012 at 11:56 AM

How are you a conservative if you believe in:

1) government picking winners and losers in the tax code?
2) believe in protecting closed shop work rules?
3) believe government should be involved enforcing/implementing theology?

Tater Salad on February 28, 2012 at 11:56 AM

the answer is of course you are not…I know, I know – rhetorical

DHChron on February 28, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Fact is dems dont go for operation Chaos, they always go for picking their most palatable candidate, and Mittedns is it. The only operation media is running is to obscrue what is really happening, and that is that mittens is the weakest opponent to zero and dems want to face him.

anikol on February 28, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Don’t forget, the states Mutt has won so far are the open primaries like New Hampshire (which also gave us McCain) or states that are heavily Mormon. I guess that shoots that theory down, too. There are more similarties than differences between Obama and Romney. They’re a wash and we know who the democrats and independents will go for there. We need a strong contrast, not a copy.

mozalf on February 28, 2012 at 12:00 PM

I always cherished a theory that Perry and Palin had an unspoken – or, quite possibly, negotiated – agreement that one of them will jump in, and the other will support from the sidelines. If Palin truly wanted to run, she should have thrown her hat into the ring earlier. As weak as the field is this cycle, she’d run over the opposition like a snow plow; it’s the general election that she’d have trouble with.

Archivarix on February 28, 2012 at 11:20 AM

My theory about Palin is that the vicious media attacks made her overly cautious. Sarah did a few things to keep herself in the public eye, but what she hoped for was an invitation from the Republican voters to lead the party instead of another tough fight. She might well have been the nominee but only after stepping over the politically dead bodies of all the other candidates. That wasn’t a fight she wanted.

Gladtobehere on February 28, 2012 at 12:01 PM

1) As much as we all love to hate the mandate, it is the ONLY way to balance the sheet. As long as hospitals are forced at gunpoint to provide services to indigents, they must in turn force healthy people to chip in. EMTALA is the root of evil here, and I wish the candidates spoke more of it.

Archivarix on February 28, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Bingo. But no one wants to talk about it because (as one of my liberal buddies puts it) “it would be too heartless for a country as rich as we are to let people die on the streets because they can’t afford medical care.”

gotsig on February 28, 2012 at 11:48 AM

You are both correct that EMTALA is part of the problem. Medicare is another. However, both of those laws were in effect prior to the enactment of ObamaCare and the chances are in this election (assuming SCOTUS doesn’t overturn the whole deal) that we have one chance to repeal it and that is for a Republican to be in the Whitehouse who will not give up when Congress doesn’t cooperate. Santorum’s tenacity in the Welfare reform battle which only passed after 2 vetoes provides the best chance. Romney won’t fight that hard if he is opposed by Congress and the MSM. Plain and simple.

txmomof6 on February 28, 2012 at 12:02 PM

I think Santorum’s comment is appealing to people that didn’t have the grades or two nickels to rub together to get into college. They look at people younger than them bettering themselves and they resent it because it points out the failings in their own lives. They want to say, “well I may work in some crappy factory, but at least I am not some liberal elite!” It is very similar to the Tebow hatred we see in that it is just jealousy. We have seen a great backlash against higher education at our own peril. It is rich to hear people who never went wail on and on about what goes on in the classroom. Stop forming an opinion based on B-movies and see for yourself. Major in something real like the sciences and not humanities.

That said, college is screwing everyone because of student loans, skyrocketing cost, union benefits for employees, and people putting it on a pedestal. They also offer stupid majors that just mislead and confuse people into fields that will never generate a good income. You must think of it as a business and not an institution and it will make more sense.

antisense on February 28, 2012 at 10:41 AM

I am the last person to say everyone should go to college. Everyone should not go to college (or grad school for that matter, which has become the new college). But a lot of people should go to college, and that is becoming increasingly so in a world where you need a college education to get ahead.

Now, that does not mean there are not problems with our current system. But, college still gives a person the best chance to make something of themselves. And to me, it is naive to pretend that everyone should not aspire to a college degree. Sure, some people will find college is not for them (because they want to pursue a career in the military, or because they dont have the grades, etc..), but if that is the goal, a lot of people who thought they could not go to college because of the environment they were raised in, will go to college, and achieve big things.

And dont we want to get the 50% of the population who pay no taxes to either better their lives, or those of their kids? Isn’t that a noble goal? And it is one that is more prudent than pretending that manufacturing jobs, and the like, are not basically gone for good?

So, while Santorum goes and tries to get blue collar votes in the rust belt, I am 100% opposed to his thinking that everyone should not aspire to go to college. Because to me, college should not just be for the middle class and above.

milcus on February 28, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Yer kidding, right? So, in milcüs world Mittens is a conservative?
OooooooooooooK
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 28, 2012 at 10:55 AM

No, that was not my point. My point is that a person is not conservative if they wont vote for Romney, who should be the nominee, in an election against Obama.

I dont care what you think of Romney, if you are a Republican, your priority should be a vote against Obama this election.

milcus on February 28, 2012 at 12:05 PM

If Romney wins the nomination, I will begrudgingly, resigningly, and hesistantly, vote for him in the general election. But without much joy or hope for our country. Maybe a little more than if Obama gets re-elected, but not much, because I don’t see much changing under Romney.

as long as you vote for him we don’t care.Because you know we MITTBOTS are heartless.

lol

gerry=mittbot

gerrym51 on February 28, 2012 at 12:06 PM

you stinkin’ Mittiot!

DHChron on February 28, 2012 at 12:09 PM

I dont care what you think of Romney, if you are a Republican, your priority should be a vote against Obama this election.

milcus on February 28, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Forget it with this crowd today. They cannot see far enough to get a look at the real enemy.

cozmo on February 28, 2012 at 12:10 PM

ooooh, ooooooh! It’s Obama!

DHChron on February 28, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Forget it with this crowd today. They cannot see far enough to get a look at the real enemy.

cozmo on February 28, 2012 at 12:10 PM

That is my sense as well.

But who needs those critical thinking skills that are developed in college. To paraphrase their hero – To hell with college.

milcus on February 28, 2012 at 12:14 PM

But Ed Morrissey and Tina Korbe didn’t endorse Romney; they endorsed Santorum.

Yet further evidence as to why this site has been going to hell in a handbasket since it got bought out by Town Hall.

JFS61 on February 28, 2012 at 12:15 PM

That is my sense as well.

milcus on February 28, 2012 at 12:14 PM

This is just the second string nutballs though. The fun should be tonight when csdeven, chupi and the other real crazies show up to either gloat, or have another meltdown.

cozmo on February 28, 2012 at 12:17 PM

You are both correct that EMTALA is part of the problem. Medicare is another. However, both of those laws were in effect prior to the enactment of ObamaCare and the chances are in this election (assuming SCOTUS doesn’t overturn the whole deal) that we have one chance to repeal it and that is for a Republican to be in the Whitehouse who will not give up when Congress doesn’t cooperate. Santorum’s tenacity in the Welfare reform battle which only passed after 2 vetoes provides the best chance. Romney won’t fight that hard if he is opposed by Congress and the MSM. Plain and simple.

txmomof6 on February 28, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Medicare and Medicaid are much bigger issues than EMTALA but they are unrelated to the individual mandate, and are just used as leverage to force EMTALA up the providers’ collective rear. The first candidate to dare popping EMTALA as topic du jour will receive a significant boost in my support.

Archivarix on February 28, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Yet further evidence as to why this site has been going to hell in a handbasket since it got bought out by Town Hall.

JFS61 on February 28, 2012 at 12:15 PM

You betcha’. Every real genius knows how the writers here kowtow to the establishment.

cozmo on February 28, 2012 at 12:19 PM

I am the last person to say everyone should go to college. Everyone should not go to college (or grad school for that matter, which has become the new college). But a lot of people should go to college, and that is becoming increasingly so in a world where you need a college education to get ahead.

there is nothing inherently wrong with going to college to get an education if one can afford it.

are the professors in the schools mostly liberal,commie,pinkos(i’m dating myself) of course.but thats the way it is. most republicans get real jobs.

gerrym51 on February 28, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Forget it with this crowd today. They cannot see far enough to get a look at the real enemy.

cozmo on February 28, 2012 at 12:10 PM

I hate breaking it to you bro, but the real enemy is Big Government, not Obama. The Fedzilla is a bubonic plaque whereas Barry O’Zero is just a boil caused by it.

Archivarix on February 28, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Yet further evidence as to why this site has been going to hell in a handbasket since it got bought out by Town Hall.

JFS61 on February 28, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Didn’t Michelle Malkin, who used to own this site, also support Santorum? Also, since when did Michelle tell Ed who he could support?

Gladtobehere on February 28, 2012 at 12:21 PM

This is just the second string nutballs though. The fun should be tonight when csdeven, chupi and the other real crazies show up to either gloat, or have another meltdown.

I resent being called a “second string nutball”. I think I’m as nuts as anybody.

LOL

gerry-mittbot-nutball

gerrym51 on February 28, 2012 at 12:21 PM

gerrym51 on February 28, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Sorry bud, but you don’t have schtick to be on the first string.

chupi has his racist rock, though blue gills is trying to steal or borrow it. csdeven has her human suit, or god suit, or jesus suit depending on the day. jailbait has a memorable handle to go with his made up facts.

You need something other than off-the-rails crazy to make it to the top tier of hatin’ nutballs with this crowd.

cozmo on February 28, 2012 at 12:26 PM

I resent being called a “second string nutball”. I think I’m as nuts as anybody.

LOL

gerry-mittbot-nutball

gerrym51 on February 28, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Wrong! Check out what’s below. If you think I’m making it up, click the link labeled 7:51 PM

When Mitt Romney gets mad, volcanoes explode.
csdeven on February 17, 2012 at 7:51 PM

Gladtobehere on February 28, 2012 at 12:28 PM

antisense on February 28, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Michael Moore has no friends. Just hangers on.

gerrym51 on February 28, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Yeah…take a look at who’s backing Santorum. Michael Moore “My friends are voting for Santorum”. Santorum robocalled democrats to vote for him.

What kind of a conservative courts Democrats to get his way….and how much and how often would he do it if he ever became President? Selling out conservative principles would be the order of his day. Just as supporting Arlan Specter was all to convenient and easy for Santorum when he wanted to feed his own ambitions.

Of course, the Democrats are only voting for Santorum because they believe he would lose handily to Obama in the general election. This is EXACTLY why OPEN PRIMARY races should be banned. How is the interest of each party served in nominating their strongest candidate who best represents their views on the future and course of this nation when the opposition party is free, in any year that said opposition party is not running a primary race of its own, to vote for the candidate whom they consider the weakest against their own candidate? It denies the party that IS running a primary race the ability to nominate the candidate of their choosing and field the candidate they believe is most likely to defeat the incumbent.

The open primary should be outlawed in all fifty states as it actually denies the voters of either party the right to choose their best nominee unhindered. The open primary is not ‘more fair’ its just more stupid.

thatsafactjack on February 28, 2012 at 12:32 PM

Sorry bud, but you don’t have schtick to be on the first string.

My opinion is Dr.Tesla and liberal4life are the real nutballs

gerrym51 on February 28, 2012 at 12:34 PM

This is just the second string nutballs though. The fun should be tonight when csdeven, chupi and the other real crazies show up to either gloat, or have another meltdown.

cozmo on February 28, 2012 at 12:17 PM

I might have to check that out. I imagine this place might feel pretty depleted if Romney wins Michigan tonight.

milcus on February 28, 2012 at 12:36 PM

The open primary should be outlawed in all fifty states as it actually denies the voters of either party the right to choose their best nominee unhindered. The open primary is not ‘more fair’ its just more stupid.

thatsafactjack on February 28, 2012 at 12:32 PM

But then Romney wouldn’t have been able to vote for Tsongas.

cozmo on February 28, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4