Team Santorum: Michigan was really sort of a tie, don’t you think?

posted at 7:45 pm on February 29, 2012 by Allahpundit

Predictable day-after spin from Team Sweater Vest, reminiscent of Kevin Kline talking about Vietnam at the end of “A Fish Called Wanda.” Just one teensy caveat:

They’re right.

The NBC News Elections Desk reports that in the Michigan primary, with 30 delegates at stake, Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney will split that state’s delegates 15 apiece.

Michigan allocated its delegates winner-take-all by congressional district.

Well, no, they’re not really right. They tied in delegates but Santorum doesn’t care about that; the goal in Michigan was to shatter Romney’s status as presumptive nominee by shocking him on his home field. It was all about narrative: Romney can’t win in the midwest, in a state where his family has a huge brand, even when he outspends his opponent two to one. Time to appoint a new general to lead the battle against Obama in the fall. Instead, not only did Mitt pull it off, he topped his vote total from four years ago. And more than that, he did it by winning with the right groups. I’m sympathetic to Erick Erickson’s post this morning arguing that a narrow win at home despite a huge spending advantage doesn’t bode well for November, but the narrowness of that win is distorted by the fact that so many Democrats turned out for Santorum. It was Romney, not RS, who won handily among Republicans, 47/37; in a closed primary, without those votes that Santorum got from people who’ll likely be backing Obama in the fall, Mitt would have won in a rout. Read John Podhoretz’s op-ed in today’s Post for further thoughts on that. Conservative activists who know Romney’s record inside and out may hate and/or mistrust him, but the GOP rank-and-file that doesn’t follow politics day to day likes him well enough. They want to beat O and Mitt can plausibly claim that over the course of a long campaign he’s best positioned to make that happen. Although, to bring this point full circle, that phenomenon poses a risk in the general election identified by Erickson: If you have an incumbent whom most people personally like pitted against a guy lacking charm and a compelling campaign message beyond “electability,” who are the low-information rank-and-file in the broader electorate more likely to vote for?

Two clips you for here. One is a new ad from Team Romney touting the mischievous Democratic support for Santorum in last night’s vote. That’s a smart thing to needle him for, not so much because people think RS is a left-wing dupe or that it’s horribly transgressive to make robocalls to Democratic voters but because the contrast blunts Santorum’s attacks on Mitt for being a “Massachusetts liberal.” Expect to see more of this. The other clip, via Mediaite, is of Krauthammer blaming Santorum’s loss on “Kennedy, college, and contraception.” I wondered too yesterday whether his bashing of JFK’s church-and-state speech might have contributed to his loss among Catholics, but it’s hard to believe that Catholic affection for Kennedy is still so profound that an election today might turn on it. Ed Kilgore at the Washington Monthly asks a good question: Did RS “lose” the Catholic vote last night or is it more the case that he never really had it?


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

Romney wins Wyoming. There are like 12 people in that state, but he won. Rick will call it a tie.

Rusty Allen on February 29, 2012 at 8:51 PM

@urban elitist

Maybe your right and I’m going off of to much the coverage I saw on CNN this evening which was almost all negative about romney.

CNN had a headline on their front page romney and santorum split delegates.

What does arizona not count.

And why when romney wins a state easily does the media dismiss arizona when it is different the other way around.

The media decided weeks ago arizona wouldn’t count even though romney won big without mormons.

ryandan on February 29, 2012 at 8:53 PM

@Rusty Allen

To be fair Wyoming had a caucus which has about one percent turnout. I’d imagine if they had a primary you might seen tens of thousands.

Maybe paul can win the north dakota and alaska caucus.

Next cycle should end caucuses and these open primaries which are good in theory but in bad in practice because of the mischief making.

ryandan on February 29, 2012 at 8:55 PM

According to the media, every single state is a MUST WIN OR DIE for Mitt Romney, but other candidates only have to win a state or two here or there, and they’re considered “surgin frontrunners”. This primary seasons sucks.

Swerve22 on February 29, 2012 at 9:02 PM

I’m surprised Santy isn’t calling Arizona and Nevada a tie. I suppose FLorida was as well. Must be Satan did the vote counts.

Slainte on February 29, 2012 at 9:04 PM

ryandan on February 29, 2012 at 8:55 PM

I agree with you that the caucuses need to go the way of the dinosaur..:)

Dire Straits on February 29, 2012 at 9:05 PM

So how by supporting Romney am I shilling for Obama?

ryandan on February 29, 2012 at 8:47 PM

I meant the media is shilling for Obama.

Syzygy on February 29, 2012 at 9:07 PM

ryandan on February 29, 2012 at 8:55 PM

Roger that.

Rusty Allen on February 29, 2012 at 9:08 PM

The other clip, via Mediaite, is of Krauthammer blaming Santorum’s loss on “Kennedy, college, and contraception.” I wondered too yesterday whether his bashing of JFK’s church-and-state speech might have contributed to his loss among Catholics, but it’s hard to believe that Catholic affection for Kennedy is still so profound that an election today might turn on it. Ed Kilgore at the Washington Monthly asks a good question: Did RS “lose” the Catholic vote last night or is it more the case that he never really had it?

Catholics are like snow flakes…..John F Kennedy, was right, it wasn’t so much that Santorum took a shot at Kennedy’s legacy, it’s that he picked such a stupid point to make.

Dr Evil on February 29, 2012 at 9:10 PM

According to the media, every single state is a MUST WIN OR DIE for Mitt Romney, but other candidates only have to win a state or two here or there, and they’re considered “surgin frontrunners”.

That’s probably because given everything Romney had going for him — as in 3 years of pretty steady pimping — he should’ve had this wrapped up by January 31. He doesn’t. He’s weeeeeeaaaakkkkkk.

This primary seasons sucks.

Swerve22 on February 29, 2012 at 9:02 PM

I can see why you’d think that since your idol is having to work for it.

ddrintn on February 29, 2012 at 9:13 PM

I’ll take exit polling on “Catholics” seriously when you require holsters to get these people to show they agree with the Church on even one issue or have seen the inside of a church since they were 13.

Rocks on February 29, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Oh come on. You know a solid majority of “christians” in this country are christians in name only. They might go to church once or twice a year, but they don’t live their lives by the book or probably even believe half of what the church teaches. They are basically atheists that through either tradition or the stigma on the word atheist, refuse to attribute the label to themselves.

thphilli on February 29, 2012 at 9:16 PM

The majority of Romney’s Michigan advertising was funded by Restore Our Future, Romney’s SuperPAC.

bw222 on February 29, 2012 at 8:38 PM

Same Pac that is running the radio ads against Santorum and Newt.

bluefox on February 29, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Go to Drudge. There is a picture of Hillary winking at Ted Turner.

SparkPlug on February 29, 2012 at 8:01 PM

For a minute there I thought it was that poor reporter lady that was killed in Syria.

slickwillie2001 on February 29, 2012 at 9:22 PM

I agree with you that the caucuses need to go the way of the dinosaur..:)

Dire Straits on February 29, 2012 at 9:05 PM

But they provide such a great way to lose votes, LOL

bluefox on February 29, 2012 at 9:22 PM

But they provide such a great way to lose votes, LOL

bluefox on February 29, 2012 at 9:22 PM

LoLz..Good point..They have become a joke..:)

Dire Straits on February 29, 2012 at 9:25 PM

That’s a smart thing to needle him for, not so much because people think RS is a left-wing dupe or that it’s horribly transgressive to make robocalls to Democratic voters but because the contrast blunts Santorum’s attacks on Mitt for being a “Massachusetts liberal.”

No, sorry. It was ‘horribly transgressive’ of Santorum to make dishonest robocalls implicitly misstating Santorum’s position on the auto bailouts. It was morally wrong for Santorum to collude with the likes of UAW President and avowed Marxist Bob King and other hardcore Leftists to undermine a fellow Republican in a Republican primary. No presidential incumbent or candidate has done anything remotely like it since Nixon, and that’s saying something. So yeah, Hot Air, keep downplaying the more morally challenged aspects of Santorum’s actions in Michigan. It’s doing wonders for your credibility, believe me.

If Romney had (or does) anything similar, I’ll find another candidate to support. God help me, I’d even vote for Newt Gingrich.

troyriser_gopftw on February 29, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Caucus & Primary rules are set on the State Level by State Law in most places.

Don’t like a particular State’s primary system? Tough cookies.
Don’t like YOUR State’s primary system? Write your local representative in your State’s Upper and Lower Houses respectively and/or petition to get a referendum on the Ballot changing the Law. For example I signed a petition after the great fiasco that was the Gingrich, Santorum, et al campaigns couldn’t get on the primary ballot here in VA. Yes they definitely should have been more organized but as the same time the requirements here are so incredibly asinine it’ll drive you up the wall!

SgtSVJones on February 29, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Oh come on. You know a solid majority of “christians” in this country are christians in name only. They might go to church once or twice a year, but they don’t live their lives by the book or probably even believe half of what the church teaches. They are basically atheists that through either tradition or the stigma on the word atheist, refuse to attribute the label to themselves.

thphilli on February 29, 2012 at 9:16 PM

The people you’re describing are those who psychology pioneer William James, in his book The Varieties of Religious Experience, called ‘second-hand religionists’, those who ascribe to a faith tradition largely for traditions’ sake. That doesn’t make them bad people necessarily, and–according to James–they typically aren’t motivated by a desire to hide their non-belief. And in case you haven’t noticed, atheists aren’t exactly shy nowadays. Depending on one’s social circles, there’s little stigma surrounding lack of faith.

That said, I’ll take an up-front atheist any day over the man who wears his faith on his sleeve. When a guy tells me he’s a Christian in a business or political context, I put my hand on my wallet.

troyriser_gopftw on February 29, 2012 at 9:49 PM

NO! Romney has not won Wyoming.

and Minnesota,Missouri,and colorado, were beauty contests no delegates decided and not awarded. most will be gotten by Romney an Paul

gerrym51 on February 29, 2012 at 9:54 PM

Yes they definitely should have been more organized but as the same time the requirements here are so incredibly asinine it’ll drive you up the wall!

SgtSVJones on February 29, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Well at least you voiced your opinion. I still don’t understand that when a Candidate has filed all FEC paperwork and met the requirements to run as President that a State can enact additional requirements. What would be the point? Then it’s all political and can change. Are these rules and requirements according to the State’s Constitution?

I saw that in Michigan yesterday that votes were cast for Perry/Bachmann/Huntsman & Cain. They are not running any longer. However, of the 4 that ARE running, only two are allowed on the VA ballot.

We need some uniformity!!

bluefox on February 29, 2012 at 10:01 PM

I don’t understand how Santorum and Romney could have all of the delegates in Michigan. Michigan awards 28 of its delegates by congressional district, 2 per district. Ron Paul won at least 3 districts in Detroit; in fact he carried Detroit. So Paul has at least 6 delegates out of Michigan.

Puma for Life on February 29, 2012 at 10:08 PM

That said, I’ll take an up-front atheist any day over the man who wears his faith on his sleeve. When a guy tells me he’s a Christian in a business or political context, I put my hand on my wallet.

troyriser_gopftw on February 29, 2012 at 9:49 PM

If he brings the subject up first, then I would be suspicious also.
If one’s faith is real, then YOU should be able to tell HIM, not vice-versa.

In politics tho, the motives that the press or media ask are not sincere.

bluefox on February 29, 2012 at 10:09 PM

Yes, he did win Wyoming.

Rusty Allen on February 29, 2012 at 10:14 PM

troyriser_gopftw on February 29, 2012 at 9:38 PM

excellent analysis of Santy’s pact with…well, not Satan, but dailykos :-) (hope it was worth it), especially that the holier-than-though, true con, principled crowd at HA glosses over the matter…

jimver on February 29, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Caucus & Primary rules are set on the State Level by State Law in most places.

SgtSVJones on February 29, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Thank you for providing practical advice on how we can work to change election rules in our states that we oppose, SgtSVJones!

As an addendum to your comment, I’d like to suggest that people check with the Leaders of their political party to see which election process decisions they can influence.

For example, in California it is the political parties that decide whether their party Presidential Primary will be a “Closed” Primary or a “Modified-Closed” Primary.

How are presidential primary elections conducted in California?

Qualified political parties in California may hold presidential primaries in one of two ways:

Closed presidential primary – only voters indicating a preference for a party may vote for that party’s presidential nominee.

Modified-closed presidential primary – the party also allows voters who did not state a party preference to vote for that party’s presidential nominee.

If a qualified political party chooses to hold a modified-closed presidential primary, the party must notify the California Secretary of State no later than the 135th day before Election Day.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/2012-elections/june-primary/faqs-primary-2012.htm

So if the California Republican Party decides to let Non-Republicans vote in the California Presidential Primary, we need to complain loudly to the California Republican Party leadershop.

I don’t know what decision the California Republican Party has made for the June 2012 Primary.

wren on February 29, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Romney out spent Rick by 6 to 1? Or was it 10 to 1?

b1jetmech on February 29, 2012 at 8:15 PM

I’ve seen this lie spread around a bit today. I also saw it debunked above, but feel it needs to be hit on the head one more time. The actual spending was about 3 to 2 in Romney’s favor. Santorum really pulled out all the stops, and close to bankrupted his campaign. If his fundraising falls off at this point, he’s in deep kim-chi.

Except, of course, that AFSCME is going to run $500K in ads for him in Ohio. Yeah, Reagan Democrats, riiiiiiight.

And here’s Santorum in January:


“We want the activists of the party, the people who make up the backbone of the Republican Party to have a say in who our nominee is as opposed to a bunch of people who don’t even identify themselves as Republicans picking our nominee,” Santorum told voters on the call held January 29. “I don’t like that. I believe that states should only allow Republicans to vote in Republican primaries.”

Flip-flopper, indeed.

HTL on February 29, 2012 at 10:18 PM

I don’t understand how Santorum and Romney could have all of the delegates in Michigan. Michigan awards 28 of its delegates by congressional district, 2 per district. Ron Paul won at least 3 districts in Detroit; in fact he carried Detroit. So Paul has at least 6 delegates out of Michigan.

congessional districts not countys

gerrym51 on February 29, 2012 at 10:20 PM

Conservative activists who know Romney’s record inside and out may hate and/or mistrust him

How did they feel this morning when theywoke up spooning an ugly, stinky hippie?

NoDonkey on February 29, 2012 at 10:30 PM

I don’t understand how Santorum and Romney could have all of the delegates in Michigan. Michigan awards 28 of its delegates by congressional district, 2 per district. Ron Paul won at least 3 districts in Detroit; in fact he carried Detroit. So Paul has at least 6 delegates out of Michigan.

Puma for Life on February 29, 2012 at 10:08 PM

Here is the link to the Michigan Secretary of State’s website where you can see how far behind Ron Paul was in each of Michigan’s Congressional Districts:

http://miboecfr.nictusa.com/election/results/12PPR/25.HTM

wren on February 29, 2012 at 10:32 PM

See, if Santorum had been under the radar, behind in the polls, and didn’t predict he would win in Michigan, that spin might have worked. Too bad, no one cares. Romney beat his 2008 vote total and percentage, and won Tea Party supporters AND Catholics.

Santorum did it all to himself, too. No whining about negative ads because they demonstrably failed to move his numbers more than the margin of error. What happened was that Romney won the late deciders going away.

Besides the silly bravado of saying he would win, hyping the expectations game unnecessarily, and his lackluster debate performance, his own statements derailed his momentum. What he said about college and Kennedy, etc., wasn’t even all wrong, just stupidly timed and without any reason.

Now he wins Ohio, or he goes home to DC and back to lobbying.

Adjoran on February 29, 2012 at 10:35 PM

Tie my ass…..Romney had 32,000 votes more than Santorum did and they were actually Republicans which is more than can be said for Santorum’s followers..3 to 1 Democrats voted for the guy they want Obama to run against..Rick Santorum.

And btw, a tie would be Iowa where Santorum got 34 votes more than Romney..but to hear him tell it, that was a regular land slide.

Terrye on February 29, 2012 at 10:43 PM

I posted this on another HA thread. I wasn’t aware of this.

I have just become aware of Google’s new Privacy Policy eff 3/1/12.
Haven’t finished reading it yet, but you may want to and take steps needed.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/02/a-public-notice-about-your-private-history/

There may be other links, haven’t found out yet. Will post them if so.

bluefox on February 29, 2012 at 10:42 PM

bluefox on February 29, 2012 at 10:44 PM

Tie my ass…..Romney had 32,000 votes more than Santorum did and they were actually Republicans which is more than can be said for Santorum’s followers..3 to 1 Democrats voted for the guy they want Obama to run against..Rick Santorum.

And btw, a tie would be Iowa where Santorum got 34 votes more than Romney..but to hear him tell it, that was a regular land slide.

Terrye on February 29, 2012 at 10:43 PM
___________________________________________________

Did Mitt earn any additional delegates for those 32,000 votes? Nope. Delegates matter, not popular vote.

By the way, I recognize the spelling of your name from another site. No, my opinion on this does not make me a bigot.

takeamericabackin10 on February 29, 2012 at 10:47 PM

Santorum’s done, time for the “conservative” talk show hosts to do all they can to depress turnout for the 2012 election, so they can reap the higher ratings that will come along with an Obama victory.

NoDonkey on February 29, 2012 at 10:53 PM

I wondered too yesterday whether his bashing of JFK’s church-and-state speech might have contributed to his loss among Catholics, but it’s hard to believe that Catholic affection for Kennedy is still so profound that an election today might turn on it.

Considering how badly he misinterpreted it to mean the exact opposite of what was understood, meh.

mythicknight on March 1, 2012 at 12:39 AM

Well, no, they’re not really right. They tied in delegates but Santorum doesn’t care about that; the goal in Michigan was to shatter Romney’s status as presumptive nominee by shocking him on his home field. It was all about narrative:

nar·ra·tive    [nar-uh-tiv]
noun … The media’s chosen story line to replace the truth.

This is a recycled narrative anyway. It was most recently used by President Al Gore to explain why he won when he actually lost.

Here is the problem no one is talking about … Romney’s win in Florida and now MI. Is accomplished by loading up in the areas that he will be crushed in come Nov. Like in Florida, he loses in the areas the R will win in Nov. That was how he could lose 34-33 in counties while winning 46-32 in votes.

MarkCasper on March 1, 2012 at 5:49 AM

Did Mitt earn any additional delegates for those 32,000 votes? Nope. Delegates matter, not popular vote.

By the way, I recognize the spelling of your name from another site. No, my opinion on this does not make me a bigot.

takeamericabackin10 on February 29, 2012 at 10:47 PM

Of the delegates up for grabs on Tue, Mitt got 44 to 15 for Santo. WTG Rick.
/s

MJBrutus on March 1, 2012 at 6:02 AM

Ok, the unelectable loon Rick Santorum has had his 15 minutes. He hasn’t been able to pull off a single primary win that wasn’t a beauty contest. Let’s move on now. Let’s quit pretending like this bigot Rick Santorum should be taken at all seriously.

I’m ready for a Mitt Romney win over Barack Obama in November.

bluegill on March 1, 2012 at 7:48 AM

NO! Santorum got his butt whipped good! If it was a tie, then Cleveland tied the Knicks last night.

lhuffman34 on March 1, 2012 at 7:50 AM

… loon Rick Santorum … this bigot Rick Santorum should be taken at all seriously…

bluegill on March 1, 2012 at 7:48 AM

bigot … A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own or intolerant of people of different political views, ethnicity, race, class, religion, profession, sexuality or gender.

I want Newt … Mitt … Rick … Paul in that order. (By way of where I am coming from on this.)

The Romney supporters on this page … especially bluegill … are an embarrassment. Their posts belong on Huffington or DailyKos. They have nothing in common with modern conservative thought and/or behavior. They are almost exclusively personal at the exclusion of substance.

Newt isn’t wrong … he is fat … he is corrupt … he is immoral.

Rick isn’t wrong … he’s a nobody … he is a religious zealot … he a loon … a bigot … a neanderthal.

Ron isn’t wrong he is a kook … he is a doddering old man … he is a crank.

The folks referred to on this page as Mittbots (like bluegill) are quite tiresome to be charitable. We will vote for their candidate … if he becomes our candidate – not because of them … but in spite of them.

MarkCasper on March 1, 2012 at 8:02 AM

The Problem With Rick Santorum:

He is incapable of thinking like a CONSERVATIVE!

“It’s strange that Santorum doesn’t seem to understand the crucial state-federal divide bequeathed to us by the framers of our Constitution, inasmuch as it is precisely that difference that underlies his own point that states could ban contraception.

Of course they can. States could outlaw purple hats or Gummi bears under our Constitution!

State constitutions, laws, judicial rulings or the people themselves, voting democratically, tend to prevent such silly state bans from arising. But the Constitution written by James Madison, et al, does not prevent a state’s elected representatives from enacting them.

The Constitution mostly places limits on what the federal government can do. Only in a few instances does it restrict what states can do.

A state cannot, for example, infringe on the people’s right to bear arms or to engage in the free exercise of religion. A state can’t send a senator to the U.S. Congress if he is under 30 years old. But with rare exceptions, the Constitution leaves states free to govern themselves as they see fit.

In New York City, they can have live sex clubs and abortion on demand, but no salt or smoking sections. In Tennessee, they can ban abortion, but have salt, creches and 80 mph highways. At least that’s how it’s supposed to work.

And yet when Santorum tried to explain why states could ban contraception to Bill O’Reilly back in January, not once did he use the words “Constitution,” “constitutionally,” “federalism,” their synonyms or derivatives. Lawyers who are well familiar with the Constitution had no idea what Santorum was talking about.

He genuinely does not seem to understand the Constitution’s federalist framework, except as a brief talking point on the way to saying states can ban contraception. Otherwise, he wouldn’t keep claiming, falsely, that Obamacare is the same as Romneycare.

Rick! We’re conservatives! We believe the states can establish a religion — and the federal government can’t.

If he truly believed in the Constitution, Santorum wouldn’t be promoting big social programs out of the federal government, such as tripling the child tax credit exemption and voting for “No Child Left Behind.”

No federalist can support this man. “

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-02-29.html

mountainaires on March 1, 2012 at 8:36 AM

Who in their right mind could look at a 15 – 15 delegate split and call it a tie?

plewis on March 1, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Beats sulking and sucking his thumb I guess.

jeanie on March 1, 2012 at 11:15 AM

So I guess this means Iowa was a tie for Romney?

scotash on March 1, 2012 at 1:04 PM

So I guess this means Iowa was a tie for Romney?

scotash on March 1, 2012 at 1:04 PM

I guess that three state sweep by Santorum a couple weeks back was a tie also, since there were no delegates won.

Swerve22 on March 1, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Comment pages: 1 2