Next battleground: Ohio

posted at 8:40 am on February 29, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

After Mitt Romney’s sweep last night and a fresh delegate haul, the road ahead gets tougher for Rick Santorum.  Santorum never really came close in Arizona, but he had a lead in Michigan until a mediocre debate performance a week ago gave Romney an opening to take his native state by a small but significant margin of 32,000 votes, about three percentage points of the overall vote.  Turnout appears to be slightly higher than in 2008, and that means that Romney can avoid another knock about his impact on voting in the primaries being depressed in his wins.  Even the hope that Santorum might end up with more of Michigan’s delegates, thanks to rules that allocate them by Congressional-district votes, ran aground this morning:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney won the popular vote by a 41-38% margin as well as the tally in seven of 14 congressional districts, most of them in southern Michigan.

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum won six congressional districts, including the 1st district, which includes the Upper Peninsula an a portion of northern Lower Michigan by just two votes. All of Santorum’s wins came in the northern and western portions of the state. …

As a result, Romney wins 21 delegates from the congressional district results, according to results posted by the Michigan Republican Party, but only 14 of those delegates will be allowed to vote at the national convention because the state broke national GOP rules by moving its primary before the Super Tuesday contests next week.

Santorum wins 18 delegates from the congressional districts, but only 12 of those people will be able to vote at the national convention.

The statewide popular vote will be distributed between Romney and Santorum on a proportional basis with 14 at large delegates at stake, but only two of those delegates will have voting privileges. How those will be divvied up hasn’t been determined.

Santorum’s team claimed a moral victory in a close second-place finish:

“A month ago they didn’t know who we are, but they do now,” Santorum told supporters gathered in a downtown hotel. “We came into the backyard of one of my opponents, in a race that everyone said, ‘Well, just ignore, you have really no chance here.’ And the people of Michigan looked into the hearts of the candidates, and all I have to say is: I love you back.”

Santorum’s advisers noted that Santorum and Romney essentially split the delegates in the Michigan contest because of new party rules, regardless of what the popular vote may have been. Senior strategist John Brabender and others suggested Romney would emerge from Michigan as a weaker candidate.

“God bless him for spending a fabulous amount of money to come into his home state to eke out a victory in the total count and to walk away with many fewer delegates than anybody thought humanly possible two weeks ago,” Brabender said.

The problem with that spin is that, eventually, wins matter, and not just in delegate counts.  One does not win the nomination through a series of second-place finishes.  For a campaign that runs one campaign at a time rather than an organization competing in multiple states at a time, victories are even more important.

In six days, the candidates will compete again in ten states for the Super Tuesday threshold, and the consensus is that Ohio will hog the spotlight.  Georgia might come into play, too, if Newt Gingrich can’t hold onto his lead in his own native state, and Santorum has a big lead in Oklahoma that Romney will not likely bother to challenge.  Santorum didn’t get on the ballot in Virginia, and has a smaller slate of electors in Tennessee thanks to a failure to qualify them.  Ohio has the largest delegate haul next week, and it also consists of the kind of blue-collar, Rust Belt voters that Republicans need to draw to win in November.

So far, Santorum has a lead in the RCP poll average of about eight points, but that may change with the loss in Michigan among the same kind of voters.  Santorum cannot afford another loss in the Rust Belt, especially since Romney is likely to do well in most of the other Super Tuesday contests.  Since all of the binding contests on Super Tuesday are proportional-allocation primaries, Santorum will get a significant number of delegates from second-place finishes again, but without a couple of big wins, Romney will keep adding to his delegate lead and making the case for donors to get on the bandwagon now.

It’s not over for Santorum, but a win in Ohio is a must.  Expect to see Romney and Santorum in Buckeye country all week long.

Update: I had forgotten about this, but my friend Salena Zito of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reminds me that Santorum won’t be on the ballot at all in three of Ohio’s Congressional districts:

Political strategists consider Ohio a critical win for the eventual Republican nominee because none has won the White House without winning the state.

Among 10 states holding Super Tuesday primaries on March 6, Ohio will award 66 delegates to the Republican National Convention. Santorum is not on the ballot in three of the 16 congressional districts, potentially putting him at a nine-delegate disadvantage.

That complicates matters for winning the state, obviously.  If Santorum loses Ohio overall because he couldn’t make the ballot in three CDs, that won’t be an excuse — it will become a reason for voters in later contests to stick with the candidate with better organization.  Santorum will need to win by enough in the other thirteen CDs to overcome his omission, and that will be a very tall order.

Update II: Actually, voters in those districts can vote for Santorum — but he can’t win the delegates, according to Politico:

All six major GOP candidates have been certified and will appear on the Ohio ballot, according to a list released by the Ohio secretary of state’s office today. But Rick Santorum, the release said, did not file delegates in the 6th, 9th or 13th congressional districts — and loses his chance at getting any delegates in those districts.

Forty-eight of the state’s 66 delegates are awarded proportionally based on the vote in each congressional district — three per district — and the remaining 18 delegates are awarded based on the at-large vote statewide. That means that while Santorum can get votes toward the at-large total in those three districts, he has no shot at taking a share of the nine total delegates those districts will award.

That’s still going to be an issue in the Ohio election, but it’s not as bad as it first looked.  Thanks to Daren B for the update.


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 5

The left is holding fire on Romney’s Mormonism. They may not overtly criticize him for his faith, but they’ll have surrogates ‘innocently’ questioning that faith.

Should that happen the reply might be something like this, “So, Senator Reid is a good and righteous Mormon (although he claimed the war in Itaq and is too cowardly to submit a budget) but Governor Romney is a bad and evil Mormom. Care to expand on your logic?”

Disclaimer, I am not a Mormom.

jb34461 on February 29, 2012 at 11:03 AM

How many of those Santorum voters in Michigan will actually be voting for Obama this fall?

None of the Romney voters will be voting for Obama this fall, that’s for certain.

NoDonkey on February 29, 2012 at 8:52 AM

Exactly.

totherightofthem on February 29, 2012 at 11:03 AM

They influence a minority – McCain cruised to the nomination in spite of them hating him, Romney will win too in spite of their vitriol – but a very vocal one.

From William Buckley to Mark Levin… sigh.

joana on February 29, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Wait…I was pretty sure McCain lost to Obama, wouldn’t that indicate that they were right, that McCain was weak…and now they are saying Romney is weak…
You are very well schooled, after the elections will you tell us how much you were paid for these postings?

right2bright on February 29, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Anyone who thinks Romney will attack anyone’s faith is simply too mentally unstable to discuss with.

Romney is a gentleman, not a bigot. And he’s politically smart, not an amateur like Santorum (who think it’s a good idea to suggest that mainline protestants aren’t really Christians).

joana on February 29, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Romney can’t afford to attack anyone’s faith. It has nothing to do with his being a gentleman, but with the fact that he would bring attention to his own.

Santorum didn’t suggest that mainline protestants aren’t Christian. He was making the correct point that some churches have sold out to liberal dogma.

Lightswitch on February 29, 2012 at 11:04 AM

They influence a minority – McCain cruised to the nomination in spite of them hating him, Romney will win too in spite of their vitriol – but a very vocal one.

From William Buckley to Mark Levin… sigh.

joana on February 29, 2012 at 11:01 AM

You are a very good, effective writer and you make your points well. Not trying to kiss up… just wanted to let you know.

bluegill on February 29, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Santorum is already done. You bitter clingers need to just drop it.

rubberneck on February 29, 2012 at 11:02 AM

He will win Ohio,.. after that who knows, but only a fool thinks he knows how this will play out.

mark81150 on February 29, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Off I go now…

see you all here when it starts getting closer to the next election!! if not sooner.

bluegill on February 29, 2012 at 11:06 AM

How many of those Santorum voters in Michigan will actually be voting for Obama this fall?

None of the Romney voters will be voting for Obama this fall, that’s for certain.

NoDonkey on February 29, 2012 at 8:52 AM

Pretty sweeping statement…the fact is, Romney should have ran away with Michigan, and he didn’t.
His super-pac of Wall Street investors, lobbyists, are no doubt a force difficult to overcome…assuming you want a candidate that will be forever in debt to Wall Street and lobbyists.

right2bright on February 29, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Romney performed magnificently in Michigan yesterday.

bluegill on February 29, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Compared to Colorado, sure. Romney avoided a catastrophe last night and took back a precarious front runner status. Considering that he had the organization ,state GOP endorsements and money his performance to most was underwhelming.

Magnificent?love is a strange thing. When you love a man even his back hair seems magnificent.

BoxHead1 on February 29, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Wait…I was pretty sure McCain lost to Obama, wouldn’t that indicate that they were right, that McCain was weak…and now they are saying Romney is weak…
You are very well schooled, after the elections will you tell us how much you were paid for these postings?

right2bright on February 29, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Yes, that worked so well that last time around (sarc). And they tried to prop him up with Sarah Palin, who ingited excitement then. But look how the establishment hate her now. It’s rich watching Karl Rove sweat trying to prop Romney up.

mozalf on February 29, 2012 at 11:08 AM

This factually incorrect talking point is still floating around? Sure, Dole and McCain lost. But Nixon, Reagan, HW Bush, and W Bush all won. They were all establishment Republican’s whose “turn” it was when they won. That’s the truth regardless of what historical revisionism you try. There’s only one clear example of what happens when populists go all in on trying to draw “establishment” blood. That is 1964 — and that’s what is at the bottom of the cliff.

RINO on February 29, 2012 at 9:53 AM

A few point of history. Nixon ran twice for POTUS: once in 1960 and then again in 1968. It wasn’t his “turn” when he won in 1968. He had to beat other Republican candidates and the stigma of being a loser. The Republicans and the country turned to Nixon because the Democrats had a meltdown in 1968.

As for Reagan, he was never an establishment candidate. Reagan was demonized as the second coming of Goldwater. He lost to the Republican establishment candidate Ford (you forgot him) in 76. Ford lost to Carter. The Democrats suffered a meltdown in 1980 and Reagan won.

Gladtobehere on February 29, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Romney is a gentleman, not a bigot. And he’s politically smart, not an amateur like Santorum (who think it’s a good idea to suggest that mainline protestants aren’t really Christians).

joana on February 29, 2012 at 10:43 AM

A lot of mafia bosses were “gentlemen” they had others do the “dirty” work…just like Romney has the Super-Pac, of Wall Street money and lobbyists do the dirt work…clever, but a short term winner.
He won’t have that advantage against Obama…he also has his Super-Pacs…

right2bright on February 29, 2012 at 11:09 AM

What does it mean to be “anti-gay”?
listens2glenn on February 29, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Supporting bans on consensual, private, adult homosexual activity, as Santorum has done, qualifies one as an anti-gay bigot. Hope that helps clear up your confusion.
bluegill on February 29, 2012 at 11:02 AM

.
Did he elaborate as to how such a ‘ban’ would (or could) be enforced?
.
And if I reject the idea that homosexuality is a perfectly “legitimate alternate normality”, what does that make me?

listens2glenn on February 29, 2012 at 11:10 AM

we all know romneycare is an ultra flip flopper. examples;

*pro anti abortion
*pro anti gun control
*pro anti bailouts
*pro anti global warming
*pro anti cap & tax
*pro anti raising the debt limit
*pro anti tax cuts
*pro anti immigration reform
*pro anti raising taxes

God, what principle!

In 1994, he became a republican in Ma. because all seats were open to run for high office.
In his 1994 senate run he ran to the left of ted kennedy
In 2002 his overnor run, he ran as a liberal republican
In 2008 presidential run he ran as a conservative
In 2012 presidential run he runs as a moderate

Will the real willard stand up. this empty suit will say anything to get power!

Danielvito on February 29, 2012 at 11:11 AM

bluegill, I am fine with being called a loon. Coming from you, it is a badge of honor.

McDuck on February 29, 2012 at 11:13 AM

A few point of history. Nixon ran twice for POTUS: once in 1960 and then again in 1968. It wasn’t his “turn” when he won in 1968. He had to beat other Republican candidates and the stigma of being a loser. The Republicans and the country turned to Nixon because the Democrats had a meltdown in 1968.

As for Reagan, he was never an establishment candidate. Reagan was demonized as the second coming of Goldwater. He lost to the Republican establishment candidate Ford (you forgot him) in 76. Ford lost to Carter. The Democrats suffered a meltdown in 1980 and Reagan won.

Gladtobehere on February 29, 2012 at 11:09 AM

And unless things change, we’re about to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The arrogance that Obama is just so horrible that democrats and independents will come flocking to the republican candidate. Especially a interchangeable black/white (pardon the pun) negative version of the democrat candidate. We have to have a contrasting message not just more money than them.

mozalf on February 29, 2012 at 11:13 AM

It’ll be interesting to see if the HotAir posters will pull back together after the nomination is settled to get the smackdown going on Obama. That’s all it was in 2008- post after post all in agreement that he HAD to be stopped. Even though we all shuddered at most of the stuff McCain said, the goal was to keep Obama out. It’s good to have a common goal.

BettyRuth on February 29, 2012 at 11:15 AM

jb34461 on February 29, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Maybe that will work, but the libs you mention are the ‘right’ kind of Mormon, leftists. Kennedy was ‘Catholic’, and he was glorified. That didn’t help Santorum. Santorum didn’t help himself either, I’ll give you that.

Lightswitch on February 29, 2012 at 11:15 AM

As a Buckeye, I’m still surprised at how well Santorum polls in my state.

tdpwells on February 29, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Unlike many romneycare rump lickers, I actually saw how the democrats ran local negative ads in Ma. to destroy romneycare. They had people on TV crying about how romneycare’s company laid them off. How Bain & company didn’t have to do it but he did. ted kennedy, ran those ads over and over again.

In this enviorment, I’m sure it’ll look swell to the 9% of people unemployed.

So you azzes have taken obamacare off the table, now you’ll take unemployment and underemployment off the table.

I wonder if romneycare can even get 150 electoral votes in the general.

Danielvito on February 29, 2012 at 11:21 AM

And unless things change, we’re about to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The arrogance that Obama is just so horrible that democrats and independents will come flocking to the republican candidate. Especially a interchangeable black/white (pardon the pun) negative version of the democrat candidate. We have to have a contrasting message not just more money than them.

mozalf on February 29, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Unfortunately, the media is on the side of Obama. If we had a fair media, I think we’d have an easy time of winning. The Republican nominee in 2012 has too fight the race card, the media, and Obama. I’m not sure they’re up to it. Maybe Newt, possibly Santorum, but Romney called Obama a “nice guy.” That sounds just like McCain.

Gladtobehere on February 29, 2012 at 11:21 AM

It’ll be interesting to see if the HotAir posters will pull back together after the nomination is settled to get the smackdown going on Obama. That’s all it was in 2008- post after post all in agreement that he HAD to be stopped. Even though we all shuddered at most of the stuff McCain said, the goal was to keep Obama out. It’s good to have a common goal.

BettyRuth on February 29, 2012 at 11:15 AM

From your mouth to God’s ears, but you’re also right about McCain and it didn’t work out so well for us in 2008. Stopping Obama is not going to be enough of an incentive all around. And Romney is like a 1-note, broken record saying nothing that incites excitement or passion. Obama will probably even echo him if he’s the nominee, and sound bombastic and loud like he usually does. Someone on another post described Romney perfectly: like a robotic pep-squad leader. That’s why most of us are fighting so hard to change the outcome of this primary so that we get a nominee we can vote FOR not just use as a vote against Obama. At least Santorum, who may not be as rich, is more likeable and believable.

mozalf on February 29, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Romney can’t afford to attack anyone’s faith. It has nothing to do with his being a gentleman, but with the fact that he would bring attention to his own.

Why would Romney attack someones faith.

gerrym51 on February 29, 2012 at 11:23 AM

.
I could use some extra money. How Can I become a paid hack?

Me to.

gerrym51 on February 29, 2012 at 11:24 AM

None of the Romney voters will be voting for Obama this fall, that’s for certain.

I’m not so certain that no Democrats voted for Romney.

lea on February 29, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Fallon, yes, Joana does seem a bit unstable. A more liberal version of Ann Coulter is what I get from her writing.
McDuck on February 29, 2012 at 10:52 AM
Joana won’t be around after the elections…she is a paid hack, nothing more.
right2bright on February 29, 2012 at 10:59 AM

.
I could use some extra money. How Can I become a paid hack?

listens2glenn on February 29, 2012 at 11:02 AM

We’ll contact you if you’re doing a good job smacking down those true conservative blue-collar workers for the sake of our Masters, the evil establishment capitalists. Think of it as an investment.

Okay, I’ve filed my quota for today. Time to spend my hard earned money drinking Cosmos at the Ritz.

joana on February 29, 2012 at 11:29 AM

What does it mean to be “anti-gay”?
I’m anti-homosexuality. Does that qualify me as a bigot?

listens2glenn on February 29, 2012 at 10:59 AM

I think I understand what you’re trying to get across (you’re opposed to the public acceptance of homosexuals?), but saying “I’m anti-homosexuality” is an odd formulation. Homosexuality exists, and has existed throughout recorded history, and probably long before that. It’s just a fact of life. It would be just as odd to say “I’m anti-weather” or “I’m anti-hangnail”.

Unless… you think that homosexuality is something that can and should be eradicated [I'm not claiming this is your position], in which case I suppose “I’m anti-homosexuality” works. For the record, I suppose I am for the eradication of hangnail, now that I think about it.

zarathustra on February 29, 2012 at 11:29 AM

At least Santorum, who may not be as rich, is more likeable and believable.

mozalf on February 29, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Now see, right here we see things completely differently. I have a visceral dislike of Santorum. I find him far too arrogant and actually believe him to be a dead bang loser in a general election. If he is the nominee I will have to be dragged to the voting booth after having stopped at several bars along the way. But I’ll get there. Probably.

BettyRuth on February 29, 2012 at 11:30 AM

“Your cliff is over over there. At the bottom are Willard, McCain, Dole, and Jerry Ford.”

This is the wrong analogy.

The correct analogy is that Santorum, like Goldwater, McCain, and Dole, would be a GOP senator when nominated. Each of them was a LOSER in the general, because GOP senators have the burden of a congressional voting record that is dissected and distorted by the Dems and the MSM.

Conversely, when the GOP nominates a governor (Reagan, Bush 43) or vice president (Nixon, Bush 41), they WIN. That is just one more reason why Romney is a WINNER in November – no baggage on the congressional front and, like Reagan, Romney can run AGAINST DC. This is HUGE with independents.

The last Republican president elected from the Senate was Warren Harding in 1920, nearly 100 years ago. Sort of a pattern, dontcha think?

matthew8787 on February 29, 2012 at 11:31 AM

have you noticed the Romneycare hacks & tools instead of discussing romneycare’s record they have to attack Santorium/Gingich. taking a cue from the bishop mormom romneycare.

I live in massachusetts under Romneycare and It has only affected the 8 percent of us that did not have insurance.

I get insurance from my employer . it has not affected me.

I find that most of the people who disparage it know nothing about it.

although some aspects about it are the same as obamacare the big difference about it is it is a state applied plan created and approved by the legislature go a state for that state ONLY.

Obamacare is Mandated by the federal government to states.
That is wrong.

the other and biggest difference-ma. had only 8 percent without insurance already. most other states have a far higher percentage of uninsured and is not feasible

gerrym51 on February 29, 2012 at 11:31 AM

As for Reagan, he was never an establishment candidate. Reagan was demonized as the second coming of Goldwater. He lost to the Republican establishment candidate Ford (you forgot him) in 76. Ford lost to Carter. The Democrats suffered a meltdown in 1980 and Reagan won.

Gladtobehere on February 29, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Thank you. There is a lot of misrepresentation of how Reagan was viewed in 1979 by the establishment and MSM. My only argument with your post is that Carter lost because of a meltdown. The economy and the Iranian hostage situation gave Reagan a big leg up but he beat Carter by a landslide because he was the greatest of retail politicians. He was the the opposite of stiff and plastic. After all he was a comic actor, baseball announcer,GE spokesman..There was an undeniable warmth that he naturally expressed.

BoxHead1 on February 29, 2012 at 11:32 AM

My words emphasized:

We’ll contact you if you’re doing a good job smacking down those true conservative blue-collar workers for the sake of our Masters, the evil establishment capitalists Democrats and crony capitalists. Think of it as an investment.

Okay, I’ve filed my quota for today. Time to spend my hard earned money drinking Cosmos at the Ritz.

joana on February 29, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Gladtobehere on February 29, 2012 at 11:34 AM

At least Santorum, who may not be as rich, is more likeable and believable.

I”m a Romney supporter but I agree that Santorum is more likable than Romney. But his sociaol extremes will push him over a cliff.

gerrym51 on February 29, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Nothing will unify the base behind Romney-Rubio or Romney-McDonnell more than Obama himself.

In the general election it will be far easier to get conservatives to vote for Romney than independents to vote for Santorum.

matthew8787 on February 29, 2012 at 11:37 AM

From William Buckley to Mark Levin… sigh.

joana on February 29, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Sorry. You’re wrong about Levin. He’s a constitutional lawyer/scholar of immense integrity and intellect. I’d trust his views regarding constitutionality and violations of the Constitution by various (repub and democrat) politicians any day.

I don’t say this lightly. I’m an attorney, who had to study the Constitution in law school and who never stopped studying it in my 25 years + of practicing law.

Knock off Levin. He’s not an entertainer-he’s an educator.

totherightofthem on February 29, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Thank you. There is a lot of misrepresentation of how Reagan was viewed in 1979 by the establishment and MSM. My only argument with your post is that Carter lost because of a meltdown. The economy and the Iranian hostage situation gave Reagan a big leg up but he beat Carter by a landslide because he was the greatest of retail politicians. He was the the opposite of stiff and plastic. After all he was a comic actor, baseball announcer,GE spokesman..There was an undeniable warmth that he naturally expressed.

BoxHead1 on February 29, 2012 at 11:32 AM

If Carter had been a good POTUS, which for sure he wasn’t, Reagan would have never stood a chance. Since Carter was a disaster, America was willing to try Reagan. I think his undeniable warmth help him against the charge that he was some crazy guy, but it wasn’t enough to get him elected that first time. It was however enough to get him reelected. I remember when he made the crack that he “would not use my opponents youth and inexperience against him.” That won him reelection.

Gladtobehere on February 29, 2012 at 11:40 AM

I”m a Romney supporter but I agree that Santorum is more likable than Romney. But his sociaol extremes will push him over a cliff.
gerrym51 on February 29, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Really? I’m not quite overwhelmed by Romney’s charm either, but Santorum comes off as one cranky, unpleasant guy.

whatcat on February 29, 2012 at 11:41 AM

“The problem with that spin is that, eventually, wins matter, and not just in delegate counts. One does not win the nomination through a series of second-place finishes. For a campaign that runs one campaign at a time rather than an organization competing in multiple states at a time, victories are even more important.”

What a crock.

This is a race for delegates to the convetion, and nothing else.
Romney almost loses his home state, gets maybe half the delegates…
…THAT’S THE REAL NEWS.

Your “Romney’s the winner!” crock is the only spin.

Czar of Defenestration on February 29, 2012 at 11:41 AM

I”m a Romney supporter but I agree that Santorum is more likable than Romney. But his sociaol extremes will push him over a cliff.

gerrym51 on February 29, 2012 at 11:34 AM

That’s only if we keep allowing the democrats and their media flunkies to define what’s acceptable and what’s “social extremes”. This is why we keep ending up with wishy-washy candidates that keep getting beat. They painted Ronald Reagan as extreme and he won in landslides. Republicans need to start growing cojones and speak out on all topics,

including

social issues as Rick Santorum is doing and turn the tables on the democrats and their media propaganda. Otherwise, the republican platform will be diluted until it’s unrecognizable against the democrats’.

mozalf on February 29, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Actually, I sort of misspoke there. As someone with libertarian leanings, I actually like Goldwater. I only meant that Santorum is an unelectable now as Goldwater was in 1964, but for different reasons. Our country could actually do with some Goldwater these days.

DRayRaven on February 29, 2012 at 9:08 AM

You Betcha:

“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the face of tyranny is no virtue.” – Barry Goldwater 1964

Barry G., my former Senator, had a much different view of world events.
(and then he went senile in his old age thanks to his leftist live-in nurse whom he eventually married)

The time for talk has long since passed:
Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 29, 2012 at 11:48 AM

This is a race for delegates to the convetion, and nothing else.
Your “Romney’s the winner!” crock is the only spin.
Czar of Defenestration on February 29, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Actually…..2012 Republican Delegates (GOP Popular Vote).

whatcat on February 29, 2012 at 11:54 AM

It’ll be interesting to see if the HotAir posters will pull back together after the nomination is settled to get the smackdown going on Obama. That’s all it was in 2008- post after post all in agreement that he HAD to be stopped. Even though we all shuddered at most of the stuff McCain said, the goal was to keep Obama out. It’s good to have a common goal.

BettyRuth on February 29, 2012 at 11:15 AM

If past history is an indicator, the more rabid campaign workers posting here will drift away after the convention, if their candidate loses. For some strange reason, they think what they post here has some influence on how we all vote in primaries. Perhaps it does, only in an inverse fashion.

a capella on February 29, 2012 at 11:55 AM

but it wasn’t enough to get him elected that first time…
Gladtobehere on February 29, 2012 at 11:40 AM

He was running for the nomination against the VP. If he had won it would have been one of the all time greatest upsets ever. He did well enough to make the traditional VP lock on the nomination shaky.

Also, Reagan was already a well known and loved personality to the RW “base” since his ’64 televised “Time for Choosing” speech. A speech which was so controversial that some allege that he was fired from GE because of it.

Reagan was not a blank page that just floated in and out of office. He had a substantial personality that contributed heavily to his victories

BoxHead1 on February 29, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Why would Romney attack someones faith.

gerrym51 on February 29, 2012 at 11:23 AM

He wouldn’t. I was responding to another poster who said he was too much of a gentleman to do so. I think he can’t afford to unless he wants to draw attention to his own.

Lightswitch on February 29, 2012 at 11:55 AM

gerrym51 on February 29, 2012 at 11:31 AM

I live in Ma. also. If you don’t have insurance you are fined $750. per year or are fined. further, you have to show proof of insurance on your tax forms. That is an incredible invasion of your privacy.

gerry, I noticed that you didn’t touch that medical prices have skyrocketed, that the system is bankrupt, that doctor availability is worse, that hospital’s have to pick who to provide service because of finite equpiment, more delays in emergency rooms etc.

Romneycare is the biggest thief of personal liberty in my lifetime!

Danielvito on February 29, 2012 at 11:57 AM

From William Buckley to Mark Levin… sigh.

joana on February 29, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Sorry. You’re wrong about Levin. He’s a constitutional lawyer/scholar of immense integrity and intellect. I’d trust his views regarding constitutionality and violations of the Constitution by various (repub and democrat) politicians any day.

I don’t say this lightly. I’m an attorney, who had to study the Constitution in law school and who never stopped studying it in my 25 years + of practicing law.

Knock off Levin. He’s not an entertainer-he’s an educator.

totherightofthem on February 29, 2012 at 11:39 AM

That’s like saying Paul Krguman is an economist.

joana on February 29, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Conversely, when the GOP nominates a governor (Reagan, Bush 43) or vice president (Nixon, Bush 41), they WIN.

Republican presidential candidates who were previously governors but LOST:

Tom Dewey (1948)
Tom Dewey (1944)
Alf Landon (1936)
Charles Evans Hughes (1916)

The correct analogy is that Santorum, like Goldwater, McCain, and Dole, would be a GOP senator when nominated. Each of them was a LOSER

Republican presidential candidates who were previously Senators, but WON:

Warren G. Harding (1920)
Benjamin Harrison (1888)

Emperor Norton on February 29, 2012 at 11:59 AM

As a Buckeye, I’m still surprised at how well Santorum polls in my state.

tdpwells on February 29, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Fellow Buckeye..

seriously?…….. you don’t know?…… try this, if you are white collar, make over six figures, think church is for the sheeple, think that Obama guy is a darn nice guy, just mis-guided, you are a Romney voter…

everyone else who has been kicked in the face by this economy here, has family dependent, if not actually living with them as I do, has strong family, and religious convictions and have never made over 30,000 a year in your life.. and are certain Obama is actually working to destroy the economy so he can replace it with his pet socialism, Santorum is your guy..

Santorum comes across as blue collar..

I know that enrages the Romney fans, but all the stereotyping they do with those moronic “Elmer Gantry” comments,… just shows their ignorance of how working class families think and percieve world.

How many of you have recently, worked for minimum wage?.. or have a spouse that is? How many of you here that are retired, are so because your body was broken on the job?.. or in the service? How many have never owned a business, and can’t say you ever wanted too? How many have lived pay check to paycheck recently?

That is the divide.. we’re looking for someone as close to us, our part of the culture, or at the least, someone who doesn’t look down on us as beneath his notice.

That’s why Rick does well here.

and why Romney is struggling, because a moneybags family, a billionare capitalist are nice,.. but they aren’t in any way shape or form populist. Romney can’t connect, just can’t, and worse,.. rather than try, he just writes us off, like his fans do.

We can see having a coffee with Rick,…

Romney, .. you have got to be kidding…

mark81150 on February 29, 2012 at 12:00 PM

That’s only if we keep allowing the democrats and their media flunkies to define what’s acceptable and what’s “social extremes”. This is why we keep ending up with wishy-washy candidates that keep getting beat. They painted Ronald Reagan as extreme and he won in landslides. Republicans need to start growing cojones and speak out on all topics,

Obamas superpac will play”ricks bits” over and over. he’ll be destroyed

Ronald Reagan did not make comments about gays and bestiality,say college was bad,say women belonged in the home,disparage contraception.

Reagan did not “come off” as extreme although he was a conservative-in fact today he would be considered a RINO.

Rick unfortunatly does come off as exteme. I will vote for him in the general if he is the nominee but I fear he will be destoyed.

gerrym51 on February 29, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Knock off Levin. He’s not an entertainer-he’s an educator.

totherightofthem on February 29, 2012 at 11:39 AM

That’s like saying Paul Krguman is an economist.

joana on February 29, 2012 at 11:57 AM

“facepalm”…..

somehow, if Levin had endorsed Romney, all the angst here about him from the Romney crowd would evaporate like alchol on the bar room floor.

The man is a Constitutional scholar, your agenda is showing.

mark81150 on February 29, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Any GOP candidate whose strategy includes encouraging Dems to not only sabotage a GOP primary but to do it for him is simply not trustworthy. There is no line, however drastic, such a man will not cross in my opinion.Obama style behavior…votes at any cost. S has lost the grudging respect I had for him on some fronts.

jeanie on February 29, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Reagan did not “come off” as extreme although he was a conservative-in fact today he would be considered a RINO.

Rick unfortunatly does come off as exteme. I will vote for him in the general if he is the nominee but I fear he will be destoyed.
gerrym51 on February 29, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Reagan was “extreme”, just not in the unpleasant “knock off the non-procreative sex” way. He was the consummate “happy warrior”.

whatcat on February 29, 2012 at 12:09 PM

It was mentioned during some of the earlier debates that Santorum had not had his fair of air time, and the focus was all on Romney and Gingrich. It wasn’t until Romney blew out Gingrich in Florida that Santorum started to rise in the polls as the last not-Romney left standing. Last week’s debate was the first time he had really seen the spotlight, whereupon he immediately started shooting himself..both feet, both knees, and the gut.

First, there was his debate performance, in which he outed himself as a “take one for the team” kind of guy, not exactly the principled leader many Republicans are looking for, and his support of Arlan Specter, who has all the popularity of Benedict Arnold among Republicans. Then he went off into the weeds on contraception, which isn’t an issue except for Catholics, and not even all of them. Then there were his comments on theology, both Mainline protestant and Obama’s secular version, which didn’t play very well. Then there was the bit about JFK’s landmark speech making him want to hurl. All those let the liberal press portray him as a dangerously bigoted fanatic. Unfairly, but that’s the reality and has been since Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority. There was the muddled attempt to attack Obama about college education, which is one of Obama’s (percieved) strengths. The last straw was the election-eve attempt to game the primary with a transparently hypocritical appeal to (union) democrats, which may be may be technically within the rules, but nevertheless stinks to most Republicans.

Each of those things probably got him some votes, but overall, cost him more than they gained. And this is just in the past week. The editorialists and commentators aren’t hearly done chewing these over. Add his partial failure to get on the ballot in big, must-win states and what that says about his executive ability and competence or lack thereof….

I say, stick a fork in him, he’s done. He’ll still get votes, but not enough.

Confutus on February 29, 2012 at 12:10 PM

The lies:
“Battered Romney Limps Toward Nomination”, “Mitt Wins Ugly”, “Romney Scraped Out Victories.”

The Truth:
Michigan’s results are truly amazing. Despite an onslaught of outrageous attacks from both sides and the media giving voters virtually no where to turn to for the truth… Even with Catholics across Michigan getting inundated with robo calls calling Mitt a baby-killer, Mitt won the majority of Catholic votes. Mitt ended up winning among republicans by over 10%, he and drastically increased his vote totals from 2008 despite 3 years of sustained attacks by the local and national press claiming that Mitt wanted Michigan and Detroit to fail and lose all of our auto sector jobs.
President Obama fears that Mitt could carry Michigan in the general which would make his path to re-election basically impossible. President Obama’s campaign and Super PAC had laid the groundwork to defeat Mitt Romney in Michigan for years, and they failed.

petunia on February 29, 2012 at 12:10 PM

mark81150 on February 29, 2012 at 12:00 PM

You have explained the situation very well.

Lightswitch on February 29, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Obamas superpac will play”ricks bits” over and over. he’ll be destroyed

Ronald Reagan did not make comments about gays and bestiality,say college was bad,say women belonged in the home,disparage contraception.

Reagan did not “come off” as extreme although he was a conservative-in fact today he would be considered a RINO.

Rick unfortunatly does come off as exteme. I will vote for him in the general if he is the nominee but I fear he will be destoyed.

gerrym51 on February 29, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Perhaps if Ronald Reagan were running today, he would speak out. Because saying nothing has brought us God knows what marrying God knows what, abortion on demand, paying for contraception – all main stream and perfectly acceptable now. So what’s next? Rick only comes off as extreme to those who want to see him as thus. We need to rally and be strong, not be a bunch of sheeple and appeasers to the democrats and the media.

mozalf on February 29, 2012 at 12:12 PM

somehow, if Levin had endorsed Romney
mark81150 on February 29, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Levin endorsing Romney for President, 2008:
“The only one left standing who can honestly be said to share most of our conservative principles is Mitt Romney.”

whatcat on February 29, 2012 at 12:12 PM

“facepalm”…..

somehow, if Levin had endorsed Romney, all the angst here about him from the Romney crowd would evaporate like alchol on the bar room floor.

The man is a Constitutional scholar, your agenda is showing.

mark81150 on February 29, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Levin endorsed Romney four years ago. Even called him a conservative. Who knows where is he going to be in two years. Anyway, he was a blowhard conspirationist hack back then and he is one now.

joana on February 29, 2012 at 12:12 PM

gerry, I noticed that you didn’t touch that medical prices have skyrocketed, that the system is bankrupt, that doctor availability is worse, that hospital’s have to pick who to provide service because of finite equpiment, more delays in emergency rooms etc.

and thats not happening everywhere? Romney was the governor when this was passed with our democratic legislature-you think it wouldn’t have passed with Deval Patrick?

I will say to you again-it has only affected the 8 percent that had no insurance.my premiums went up before Romneycare and they are still going up with Romneycare.

doctor availability was a problem before Romneycare-it’s still a problem

the price of individual insurance was sky high before Romneycare because of medical mandates put in before Romney. the price of individual plaNS HAS ACTUALLY GONE DOWN(but not a lot).

the people who use emergency rooms for all their medical care has not gone down-its also not gone up-its stayed the same.

the fine on the tax form can be gotten out of if you can show no affordable coverage for plan. I’m in the medical part.People do not want to pay period for medical insurance.

pre romneycare mass. had guanteed issue. you could buy insurarance anytime and could not be turned down. people waited util the got sick.

Romneycare is not a panacea. but you take a few things out of abstract.

gerrym51 on February 29, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Some people are weird. They resent some phantom elitist entity that they can’t even define that supposedly wants to command them and tells them how to vote. Then they turn around and follow the diktats of a bunch of charismatic millionaires who’ve been in the republican elites for decades as if it’s the word of God.

The crazy: don’t try to understand them.

joana on February 29, 2012 at 12:16 PM

Levin endorsing Romney for President, 2008:
“The only one left standing who can honestly be said to share most of our conservative principles is Mitt Romney.”

whatcat on February 29, 2012 at 12:12 PM

If you listened to his explanation, you’d also have heard him clarify that he felt that Romney was more conservative than McCain in 2008. And that wasn’t saying much for those 2. That was then, and this is now and we know much more about Romney especially about Romneycare since then and now.

mozalf on February 29, 2012 at 12:16 PM

we all know romneycare is an ultra flip flopper. examples;

*pro anti abortion
*pro anti gun control
*pro anti bailouts
*pro anti global warming
*pro anti cap & tax
*pro anti raising the debt limit
*pro anti tax cuts
*pro anti immigration reform
*pro anti raising taxes

God, what principle!

In 1994, he became a republican in Ma. because all seats were open to run for high office.
In his 1994 senate run he ran to the left of ted kennedy
In 2002 his overnor run, he ran as a liberal republican
In 2008 presidential run he ran as a conservative
In 2012 presidential run he runs as a moderate

Will the real willard stand up. this empty suit will say anything to get power!

Danielvito on February 29, 2012 at 11:11 AM

There is not one shred of truth in one word of what you said.

These lies have been pushed here at Hot Air, and all over the Internet, for 3 years.

Your lies are backfiring big time.

You can not win with these continued lies. Not with all the force of Fox News and talk radio and, all the bloggers for satan, pushing them with you.

Lies will not beat Mitt Romney. People can see the minute they meet him that he is simply not the caricature you have created.

The more exterme your hate gets the easier it is for people to understand the truth.

petunia on February 29, 2012 at 12:18 PM

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/new-jersey/release-detail?ReleaseID=1711

Governor Christie at 55/38 approval. Romney/Christie ticked down 6 to Obama in NJ.

VP?

joana on February 29, 2012 at 12:18 PM

We’ll contact you if you’re doing a good job smacking down those true conservative blue-collar workers for the sake of our Masters, the evil establishment capitalists. Think of it as an investment.

Okay, I’ve filed my quota for today. Time to spend my hard earned money drinking Cosmos at the Ritz.

joana on February 29, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Well it fits…seeing as Mitt’s sponsors are 18 out of the top 20 donators Wall Street, and he has taken in more lobbyist money than all the other candidates combined.
Who do you think Mitt is going to be “smacking down” Wall Street, whom he supported bailing out, and the lobbyists or the “true conservative blue-collar workers”?
The fact is, his Super-Pac, which has led to his victory, he has to be owned by them…he is no fool, he has kept his supporters close for decades…like Bechtel…big dig…Olympics…last campaign…
Super-Pac, the pac that drug this campaign into the gutter, is his master…

right2bright on February 29, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Had not thought about the angle poster-Petunia-makes above…that Romney might indeed be able to carry MI in the general. Food for thought. UAW going to be all geared up by then but hopefully will fail.

jeanie on February 29, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Lightswitch on February 29, 2012 at 12:11 PM

I never thought much before about where some of the conservatives here are coming from, till really wading through so many comments..

I get the distinct notion quite a few commenters here are completely detached from your average voter. Many, if not most are self employed, own business, or are independently wealthy. When they speak about investments, as if most voters had any beyond life insurance it becomes clear,.. there are damn few here who know how much a gallon of milk costs.

even fewer who care..

Those voters like Rick, because he’s homey, a family guy, and he doesn’t think having religious views make you some kind of freak..

like quite a few here do.. and like them, Romney comes across as cold, uncaring and without anything remotely resembling a soul. Like he was manufactured merely to run for office, nothing more.

and as far as nasty campaigning goes,.. first it’s far from clear who is doing what behind the scenes, and for Romney’s voters to complain about nasty campaigns, is downright comical..

mark81150 on February 29, 2012 at 12:21 PM

right2bright on February 29, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Touché! Plus don’t forget he owes Donald Trump also. His VP maybe? Or court jester more appropriate.

mozalf on February 29, 2012 at 12:21 PM

If you listened to his explanation, you’d also have heard him clarify that he felt that Romney was more conservative than McCain in 2008. And that wasn’t saying much for those 2. That was then, and this is now and we know much more about Romney especially about Romneycare since then and now.

mozalf on February 29, 2012 at 12:16 PM

Good rationalization. However, Huckabee was still running. How the heck was Romney more conservative than Huckabee and McCain 4 years ago but not more conservative than Santorum now? I mean, why the heck is Santorum more conservative than Huckabee or McCain?

And you know more about Romneycare now than 4 years ago? Really? Levin is even more of a hack than I thought. What did he learn in these 4 years about Romneycare that he didn’t know 4 years ago? He endorsed Romney 4 years ago with such a weak understanding of his record? Geez. It seems the “great educator” isn’t very good at educating himself. Pity.

joana on February 29, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Governor Christie at 55/38 approval. Romney/Christie ticked down 6 to Obama in NJ.

VP?

joana on February 29, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Two moderates, good deal. /

Christie would get more attention that Romney.

Lightswitch on February 29, 2012 at 12:23 PM

If you listened to his explanation, you’d also have heard him clarify that he felt that Romney was more conservative than McCain in 2008.
mozalf on February 29, 2012 at 12:16 PM

share most of our conservative principles” hardly needs the ol’ “Uh…what I meant to say, what is-is” weaseling clarification. What are all these conservative values that Levin took time to sit down and pen an article (speaking “honestly”) about? I’m up for hearing the enumeration.

whatcat on February 29, 2012 at 12:23 PM

From your mouth to God’s ears, but you’re also right about McCain and it didn’t work out so well for us in 2008. Stopping Obama is not going to be enough of an incentive all around. And Romney is like a 1-note, broken record saying nothing that incites excitement or passion. Obama will probably even echo him if he’s the nominee, and sound bombastic and loud like he usually does. Someone on another post described Romney perfectly: like a robotic pep-squad leader. That’s why most of us are fighting so hard to change the outcome of this primary so that we get a nominee we can vote FOR not just use as a vote against Obama. At least Santorum, who may not be as rich, is more likeable and believable.

mozalf on February 29, 2012 at 11:22 AM

I hope we all can rally around the nominee too, but the fact that it is likely Romney is giving me McCain flashbacks. I think Santorum is more likable too, but some people had hate-at-first- sight with him and we have to acknowledge that. I think a more polarizing candidate would be better against Obama in general because it offers more of a choice, however O has swung so far left he may have done our work for us.
If Romney goes with a West or Rand Paul for the VP slot it might get interesting.

BakerAllie on February 29, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Thanks, Emporer, you made my point: the GOP has not nominated a governor since 1948 who failed to win the preesidency.

As to the other GOP senators elected back in the 19th Century, I thank you again for bolstering my point: since WW II, every senator nominated by the GOP for president has LOST.

matthew8787 on February 29, 2012 at 12:24 PM

petunia on February 29, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Are you saying he was not a supporter of Abortion laws, that he did not appoint pro-abortion advocates to his health boards?
Are you saying he was not a supporter of some of the most strict gun laws in any state?
Are you saying he didn’t support bail outs?
That he did not support Cap and Trade?
Are you saying he never stated he was not a conservative?
That he was never an independent?
Really, you just throw out the line…You lie…and think that is enough?
Do you want the video’s again…like for the 100th time we have shown his words, his actual words stating these facts…
Best to at least admit the truth and say it doesn’t matter to you, than pretend it never happened.

right2bright on February 29, 2012 at 12:24 PM

somehow, if Levin had endorsed Romney
mark81150 on February 29, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Levin endorsing Romney for President, 2008:
“The only one left standing who can honestly be said to share most of our conservative principles is Mitt Romney.”

whatcat on February 29, 2012 at 12:12 PM

I did not know Levin had done so.. I was not connected that year much.. was still recovering from a cervical reconstruction, so I had other things to think about.

mark81150 on February 29, 2012 at 12:25 PM

And you know more about Romneycare now than 4 years ago? Really? Levin is even more of a hack than I thought. What did he learn in these 4 years about Romneycare that he didn’t know 4 years ago? He endorsed Romney 4 years ago with such a weak understanding of his record? Geez. It seems the “great educator” isn’t very good at educating himself. Pity.
joana on February 29, 2012 at 12:22 PM

It’s simple. Levin was for Romneycare before he was against it.

whatcat on February 29, 2012 at 12:26 PM

And really Santorum should have a good night next Tuesday, but never under estimate the power of the gop (voters and leaders) to give us a squish for the nominee…..they’ve done it since 1988.

PappyD61 on February 29, 2012 at 8:52 AM

You know Pappy, I have been taking one for the team almost every four years. I don’t think I can stomach doing it again. And the really sad part is, Romney will probably lose and in 2016 we will be told, yet again, that we need a moderate to win. I am beginning to think that only a total collapse will propel people to vote for an actual conservative.

Mitt and Newt are convenient conservatives, but I am beginning to think most of their supporters are too.

Go Santorum!

fight like a girl on February 29, 2012 at 12:26 PM

right2bright on February 29, 2012 at 12:19 PM

If you have that much of a problem with Wall Street, just buy an OWS bumper sticker and vote for Obama. I like Wall Street and want them to prosper as much as possible. I’m radically pro-capitalism and pro free-markets and Wall St. is the most identifiable symbol of capitalism. Anyone who blames Wall Street and capitalism for the bailouts and not the government and socialist/crony capitalism should vote for Obama.

So yeah, I don’t think Romney will be “smacking down Wall Street” – and to me, that’s a great thing. I want him to get the government out of the way and allow Wall Street to prosper even more, not help or “smack them down” as you, with your pathetic resentment and jealousy, do.

joana on February 29, 2012 at 12:26 PM

As to the other GOP senators elected back in the 19th Century, I thank you again for bolstering my point: since WW II, every senator nominated by the GOP for president has LOST.

matthew8787 on February 29, 2012 at 12:24 PM

No Mormon has ever won either…no vegetarian has ever won…no woman has ever won…no Seventh Day Adventist has won…but you know who has won? A Catholic…oh oh, your little “tidbit analysis” just took a hit.

right2bright on February 29, 2012 at 12:27 PM

I did not know Levin had done so.. I was not connected that year much.. was still recovering from a cervical reconstruction, so I had other things to think about.
mark81150 on February 29, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Ow, that sounds painful. You’re speaking “cervical” as in the neck or of the female type? (I assumed mark as in guy “Mark”.) Either way, still owww.

whatcat on February 29, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Santorum lost conservatives because of the dirty, robocall tactic, and the JFK bashing killed him with fellow Catholics. The guy is a slimy.

You know what’s telling about this primary? Every day Santorum’s tactics and message moves further to the left, while Romney is pivoting to the right on most issues. Both Santorum and Gingrich have attacked Romney from the OWS perspective(He’s rich! boo hoo!). All I’ve heard Romney talk about is how he wants to repeal Obamacare and lower our taxes. Rick Santorum had full union backing last night, and Michael Moore’s blessing and got destroyed. All Santorum wants to talk about is satan, condoms, snobbery, gays, and vomit.

The choice of who is a true conservative is clear to me.

1984 in real life on February 29, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Governor Christie at 55/38 approval. Romney/Christie ticked down 6 to Obama in NJ.

VP?

joana on February 29, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Two moderates, good deal. /

Christie would get more attention that Romney.

Lightswitch on February 29, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Christie a moderate?

Well, I guess that these days conservatives are big government, big spending, pro-unions republicans like Santorum.

Or better yet: the only reason Christie is a “moderate” is because he’s from an urban coastal state and nominated a judge.

joana on February 29, 2012 at 12:30 PM

No Mormon has ever won either…no vegetarian has ever won…no woman has ever won…no Seventh Day Adventist has won…but you know who has won? A Catholic…oh oh, your little “tidbit analysis” just took a hit.

right2bright on February 29, 2012 at 12:27 PM

A Catholic who is apparently vomit inducing to Rick Santorum.

1984 in real life on February 29, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Oops–didn’t mean to make that entire comment a link. Sorry.

EricW on February 29, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Good rationalization. However, Huckabee was still running. How the heck was Romney more conservative than Huckabee and McCain 4 years ago but not more conservative than Santorum now? I mean, why the heck is Santorum more conservative than Huckabee or McCain?

And you know more about Romneycare now than 4 years ago? Really? Levin is even more of a hack than I thought. What did he learn in these 4 years about Romneycare that he didn’t know 4 years ago? He endorsed Romney 4 years ago with such a weak understanding of his record? Geez. It seems the “great educator” isn’t very good at educating himself. Pity.

joana on February 29, 2012 at 12:22 PM

No, not good rationalization. The truth. Plus I believe he endorsed Fred Thompson over Huckabee and the others until we were stuck with Giuliani, Romney, and McCain. Then he encouraged everyone to rally around the eventual candidate. Much like the deja vu we’re going through now. Instead of bashing him, you should listen to him every day. You might learn something.

mozalf on February 29, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Santorum lost conservatives because of the dirty, robocall tactic, and the JFK bashing killed him with fellow Catholics.
1984 in real life on February 29, 2012 at 12:30 PM

I don’t know if the JFK bash cost him votes among Catholic folks more than any other group, but we have a living President who can be tackled with much better results (and not limited to just religious issues). Going after a dead President, esp. on religious grounds, was a stupid move.

whatcat on February 29, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Those voters like Rick, because he’s homey, a family guy, and he doesn’t think having religious views make you some kind of freak..

mark81150 on February 29, 2012 at 12:21 PM

I preferred Newt of the final four, but I take up for Santorum so much because a lot of what he says is twisted or his positions taken so out of context that it’s comical. Given the last few weeks it’s become pretty clear that a decent chunk of Republicans would like nothing better than to purge the Socons out of the party. Who knows, it might be time to oblige them and look at the third parties after we get Obama out of office.

BakerAllie on February 29, 2012 at 12:34 PM

somehow, if Levin had endorsed Romney
mark81150 on February 29, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Levin endorsing Romney for President, 2008:
“The only one left standing who can honestly be said to share most of our conservative principles is Mitt Romney.”

whatcat on February 29, 2012 at 12:12 PM

A lot of us voted for Romney when it was between him, McCain and the Huckster.

And none of us knew that Obamacare was coming or that it would be based on Romneycare, which most of us had never heard of.

Were you even old enough to vote in 2008? Who did you vote for?

Four years, in politics, is a lifetime.

fight like a girl on February 29, 2012 at 12:34 PM

You know Pappy, I have been taking one for the team almost every four years. I don’t think I can stomach doing it again. And the really sad part is, Romney will probably lose and in 2016 we will be told, yet again, that we need a moderate to win. I am beginning to think that only a total collapse will propel people to vote for an actual conservative.

Mitt and Newt are convenient conservatives, but I am beginning to think most of their supporters are too.

Go Santorum!

fight like a girl on February 29, 2012 at 12:26 PM

I’d rather have a “convenient conservative” than somone who gets in bed with the enemy.

I wonder if Santorum will ask Moveon.org, or PETA to do some robocalls for him in Ohio.

1984 in real life on February 29, 2012 at 12:34 PM

So yeah, I don’t think Romney will be “smacking down Wall Street” – and to me, that’s a great thing. I want him to get the government out of the way and allow Wall Street to prosper even more, not help or “smack them down” as you, with your pathetic resentment and jealousy, do.

joana on February 29, 2012 at 12:26 PM

Well, if you want your president a puppet, and controlled by a group you deem “above the law and pure”, than you do have the right man.
No group should control the presidency, no matter how you paint them…it’s not a matter of “capitalism”, it’s a matter of having a segment of the economy getting special treatment, at our expense.
You are okay with special favors going to a specific group because they supported a candidate…I think it’s wrong and not “capitalist” to do that…helping one segment of the economy at the expense of another is not what government should do…but you do.
And I noticed you “overlooked” the combined, Wall Street (who received the bailouts) and LOBBYISTS…special interest controlling the president is okay with you…not with me.
It has nothing to do with “jealousy” since you have no idea my background or what industry I work in…it has to do with not having a President making decisions harmful to the U.S. because his friends tossed him a few bucks.
I don’t want a repeat of Bechtel and the big dig…you do.

right2bright on February 29, 2012 at 12:35 PM

I’d rather have a “convenient conservative” than somone who gets in bed with the enemy.

I wonder if Santorum will ask Moveon.org, or PETA to do some robocalls for him in Ohio.

1984 in real life on February 29, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Do you think Wall Street and the lobbyist are “in bed with you”, do you think they are fighting for you?
No, they want guarantees not to lose money, as Romney supported in the past…you can lose money, but they won’t…yeah, some capitalists they are.

right2bright on February 29, 2012 at 12:37 PM

I get the distinct notion quite a few commenters here are completely detached from your average voter. Many, if not most are self employed, own business, or are independently wealthy. When they speak about investments, as if most voters had any beyond life insurance it becomes clear,.. there are damn few here who know how much a gallon of milk costs.

Either that, or some people like to talk as if they have money. Generally, I think you are right about the reasons people are choosing Santorum over Romney. Santorum has his pained moments, but he’s more accessible to the average worker. Romney is a stiff.

Lightswitch on February 29, 2012 at 12:37 PM

I think Ed et al completely misunderstand that Santorum made a fatal error embracing the Democrats’ cynical campaign to support him in Michigan. Spin it however you want, but most GOP voters are going to see that move as pathetic, and it underlines the chief argument against Santorum, that he can’t win the general election.
EricW on February 29, 2012 at 12:32 PM

What would any self-proclaimed conservative be doing pleading – and working – with the lunatic fringe left to rescue his campaign in the first place?

whatcat on February 29, 2012 at 12:38 PM

If only Romney had quit his term halfway through, and starred in a DVD about himself, we would have the complete package. As it stands we’ll take what we can get.

hanzblinx on February 29, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Ow, that sounds painful. You’re speaking “cervical” as in the neck or of the female type? (I assumed mark as in guy “Mark”.) Either way, still owww.

whatcat on February 29, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Oh definitely back of the neck,.. I have severe osteoarthritis of the spine from various compression fractures, and by 07, I had developed bone spurs inside the spinal canal, creating 4 points of stenosis,.. I was gradually loosing the function of my left arm, and hand.

Mount Carmel East, a Columbus Catholic hospital, and it’s surgical team fused my spine from C-3 to T-1, removed two veretbre, four discs, and replaced everything with titaniumn and bone grafts,.. I healled fast though, I was supposed to be in a neck brace for three months, but the bones knitted after one, so.. at least I heal fast.

My working days are done now.. I have to get another epideral in the lumbar tomorrow. They inject steroids into the spinal fluid.

yeah, I hurt always, but,.. ya do what you have to for your wife and kids.. even if I’d rather not. Shot should ease up the pain alot, for a couple of months anyway.

Kind of you to ask,..

mark81150 on February 29, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Rick unfortunatly does come off as exteme. I will vote for him in the general if he is the nominee but I fear he will be destoyed.

gerrym51 on February 29, 2012 at 12:01 PM

And Romney comes across as phony and unlikeable. Say what you want about the “have a beer with” factor, but it exists and it matters to a lot of voters. There are more voters who share Santorum’s social values than you think.

BakerAllie on February 29, 2012 at 12:40 PM

BoxHead1 on February 29, 2012 at 11:55 AM

I’m sorry, but I’m old enough to remember these elections.

Ford became president when Nixon resigned after Watergate was exposed. In 1976 Reagan ran against a sitting POTUS, not a VP. Even so, Ford had trouble winning the nomination and lost the general election.

In 1980, most voters in the general election (which is what I’m referring too) only knew Ronald Reagan the movie and TV star. They only heard about Ronald Reagan the politician pushing these strange ideas of supply side (voodoo) economics and being a warmonger (stronger defense and confronting the Soviets). Reagan won the general because Carter failed (high gas prices, inflation, hostage crisis, unemployment, Jimmy’s “malaise speech”, “are you better off now than you were four years ago?”…) Reagan’s personality then was only good for making him seem like a reasonable guy instead of an extremist, which Carter had accused him of.

Even within the Republican party, he faced Bush Sr., who beat Rsagan in some primaries. The problem with Bush Sr. was that he never came across as authentic, more of a preppy trying to sound tough. Surprising since Bush Sr. actually flew combat flew combat aircraft in WWII. Reagan came across as the stronger leader, not the warmest personality, and went on to win the nomination. Nice guys lose elections all the time. Voters want leaders first, not friends. If you can get somebody who has both, then you’ve got a truly winning combination.

Gladtobehere on February 29, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Voters want leaders first, not friends. If you can get somebody who has both, then you’ve got a truly winning combination.

Gladtobehere on February 29, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Another poster (forgot who or I’d credit) said something to the effect that Newt Gingrich is probably the worst person in the race but would be the best President out of all of them.

I’m hanging in for ABR until Super Tuesday, but the writing is pretty much on the wall unless Romney does something stupid.

BakerAllie on February 29, 2012 at 12:43 PM

And Romney comes across as phony and unlikeable. Say what you want about the “have a beer with” factor, but it exists and it matters to a lot of voters. There are more voters who share Santorum’s social values than you think.

BakerAllie on February 29, 2012 at 12:40 PM

No, I think Michigan and Arizona made it pretty clear that RS is out of the mainstream. He would have lost by a bigger margin if you subtract the Union, and Op Chaos votes.

Do you think Wall Street and the lobbyist are “in bed with you”, do you think they are fighting for you?
No, they want guarantees not to lose money, as Romney supported in the past…you can lose money, but they won’t…yeah, some capitalists they are.

right2bright on February 29, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Hey dude, I have some liberal friends who would save you a spot at Occupy oakland if you want. Just watch out for the tear gas.

1984 in real life on February 29, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Either that, or some people like to talk as if they have money. Generally, I think you are right about the reasons people are choosing Santorum over Romney. Santorum has his pained moments, but he’s more accessible to the average worker. Romney is a stiff.

Lightswitch on February 29, 2012 at 12:37 PM

I think so, and when you consider, all the tiny snippets of news we get here.. the average voter will never see or hear,.. the “have a beer with” factor looms pretty large.

Most people don’t get into it to this level, they just don’t.

mark81150 on February 29, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5