Quinnipiac: Ohio too close to call

posted at 8:40 am on March 2, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Last week, the results of a University of Cincinnati ten-day survey showed Rick Santorum up by eleven among likely voters in Ohio, the key Super Tuesday state.  However, that was mainly taken before the last debate nine days ago and entirely before Mitt Romney won in both Michigan and Arizona.  A new Quinnipiac poll of likely voters in the state taken over the previous three days shows Santorum still leading, but now within the margin of error:

The Republican presidential face-off in Ohio is too close to call as former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum has 35 percent of likely Republican primary voters to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s 31 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

This compares to a 36 – 29 percent Santorum lead in a February 27 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll, the day before the hotly-contested Michigan primary. …

Santorum leads Romney 34 – 28 percent among men and 37 – 33 percent among women, 40 – 27 percent among self-described conservatives and 42 – 25 percent among Tea Party members. Romney leads Santorum 46 – 26 percent among self-described moderates.

It would be interesting to see the breakdown of results from Tuesday’s survey responses — before Romney’s win in Michigan — and on Wednesday and Thursday after the sweep.  Quinnipiac doesn’t mention it, but it would surprise me if the result in Michigan had no impact, especially since Quinnipiac did that one-day survey on Monday and found a seven-point lead for Santorum.  The change between the two is subtle, entirely within the margin of error, but the results of each day might indicate whether it’s real or not.

There are a few interesting points to note in the internals, mostly still favorable for Santorum.  He leads Romney among both men (34/28) and women (37/33), the latter within the MOE; so much for the “gender gap,” at least for now.  Breakdowns between conservatives and moderates are almost mirror images, with conservatives breaking for Santorum at 40/27 and moderates for Romney at 46/26, an advantage for Romney in a swing state like Ohio.  Romney barely edges Santorum among those with college degrees (37/34), a bit of a surprise given the controversial “snob” remarks Santorum made this week in Michigan, but Santorum leads 36/27 among those without college degrees.  Santorum also wins two of the three age demos by double digits: 18-49YOs (37/25) and 50-64YOs (40/30).  Romney wins seniors 40/27.  Favorability is almost dead even, with Romney at 53/34 and Santorum at 57/24, and Santorum does better with women, 55/24 to Romney’s 50/37.

We’ll need to see more polling out of Ohio over the weekend to see whether anyone has momentum.  Both candidates will have to spend a lot of time in the state in order to pull out a victory, and Santorum could reestablish credibility by beating Romney in this Rust Belt swing state.  However, bear in mind that he will have to do so by a significant margin to overcome the handicap of failing to qualify for delegates in three Congressional districts, at least in terms of delegate allocation.  (via Jim Geraghty)


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

Romney has overcome an 18 point deficit in a week. Santorum’s tactics in Michigan and his weakness with the Catholic voters has doomed his presidential bid.

BobScuba on March 2, 2012 at 8:46 AM

Winning Ohio by only a few points won’t be enough. After Super Tuesday, the map looks a lot better for Romney, even if Newt drops out. Santorum better dominate on Tuesday or else the math just isn’t in his favor going forward.

Doughboy on March 2, 2012 at 8:46 AM

Romney takes Ohio by 5.

BettyRuth on March 2, 2012 at 8:47 AM

I think its going to be a long weekend for Rick Santorum. He’s down, but not out and Romney still could go out and find a few more NASCAR owners that he knows and would like to share with us.

ted c on March 2, 2012 at 8:47 AM

However, bear in mind that he will have to do so by a significant margin to overcome the handicap of failing to qualify for delegates in three Congressional districts, at least in terms of delegate allocation.

Not to mention the establishment cooking the books for Romney the way they changed the rules in Michigan after-the-fact to award Romney delegates that should have been apportioned proportionally.

Happy Nomad on March 2, 2012 at 8:47 AM

Not to mention the establishment cooking the books for Romney the way they changed the rules in Michigan after-the-fact to award Romney delegates that should have been apportioned proportionally.

Happy Nomad on March 2, 2012 at 8:47 AM

Interesting how the republican party heads allow the rules to be changed in Michigan to Romney’s advantage. But not in Virginia to allow all the candidates to be on the ballot. Just Romney and Ron Paul. Something really smells, guys. I’m glad there’s a push back in Virginia to stop these back room, sneaky deals going on to grease the skids. Virginia, wake UP!

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A conservative political action group is urging conservatives of all political parties to shun Mitt Romney on Super Tuesday and instead vote for Ron Paul.

“Ron Paul is more in line with the conservative philosophy of Virginians than Mitt Romney could ever hope to be,” Citizens for the Republic Executive Vice President Bill Pascoe told WMAL.com.

Don’t allow the media and the republican establishment to pick our candidate.

mozalf on March 2, 2012 at 8:50 AM

The best thing that could happen is that they all listen to Thomas Sowell and all switch to Newt

georgealbert on March 2, 2012 at 8:51 AM

If the GOP primary voter were one person, it would be an idiot with ADD. Changing its mind every week, influenced by gust of wind, easily swayed by the last thing it saw, and completely gullible.

YYZ on March 2, 2012 at 8:54 AM

It all comes down to the one who doesn’t put his foot in his mouth the most is the winner.

DuctTapeMyBrain on March 2, 2012 at 8:54 AM

Rasmussen Ohio poll this morning has Santorum +2, down from Santorum +18 in their last poll.

Jon0815 on March 2, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Romney takes Ohio by 5.

BettyRuth on March 2, 2012 at 8:47 AM

This.

SouthernGent on March 2, 2012 at 8:56 AM

I think its going to be a long weekend for Rick Santorum. He’s down, but not out and Romney still could go out and find a few more NASCAR owners that he knows and would like to share with us.

ted c on March 2, 2012 at 8:47 AM

It all comes down to the one who doesn’t put his foot in his mouth the most is the winner.

DuctTapeMyBrain on March 2, 2012 at 8:54 AM

My comment goes well with both posts as well as the latter contributor’s handle:

They may need to duct tape Mitt’s mouth for any off scripted moments!
ES

English Springer on March 2, 2012 at 8:57 AM

I’m not sure who to pick, the dude who professes to love those gun boom thingies, or the guy who burns condoms to expel their inherent evilness.

Bishop on March 2, 2012 at 8:59 AM

DuctTapeMyBrain on March 2, 2012 at 8:54 AM

this

cmsinaz on March 2, 2012 at 8:59 AM

Don’t allow the media and the republican establishment to pick our candidate.

mozalf on March 2, 2012 at 8:50 AM

The establishment isn’t picking anyone. The people are voting and a majority are going for Romney. It’s not like every “anti-Romney” candidate(with the exception of Huntsman and Paul) hasn’t been given their shot to make their case to the voters, but each one has come up short when they needed to step up and close the deal.

Doughboy on March 2, 2012 at 9:00 AM

The establishment isn’t picking anyone. The people are voting and a majority are going for Romney. It’s not like every “anti-Romney” candidate(with the exception of Huntsman and Paul) hasn’t been given their shot to make their case to the voters, but each one has come up short when they needed to step up and close the deal.

Doughboy on March 2, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Not when you handicap the competition as they’re doing. Making sure if something goes wrong, Romney has a back up. If they can change the rules in Michigan, allow all the candidates to be on the ballot in Virginia and Rhode Island. If Romney’s such a sure thing, then his campaign and the establishment have nothing to worry about…or do they? It seems the money momentum is picking up steam and I don’t like that.

mozalf on March 2, 2012 at 9:01 AM

The more that Ohio voters (and voters across the country) learn about the unelectable bigot Rick Santorum, the less likely they will be to vote for him.

Nominating Rick Santorum would guarantee that Barack Obama would win in a landslide.

Many people are already wising up to the fact that…

A Vote for Rick Santorum in the Primary = A Vote for Obama’s Relection

For voters’ (in Ohio and elsewhere) convenience, I’ve included below just a small sampling of revealing Rick Santorum quotes:

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

-Rick Santorum defending government bans on private, consensual homosexual activity between adults.

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

-Rick Santorum

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

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

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

-Rick Santorum

Santorum Quote:

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

Theocrat bigot Rick Santorum, who wanted to force public school science classes to teach intelligent design, would be a loser in a general election.

We need a nominee who will not take the focus off of Obama’s failed economic record, as Rick Santorum with all his judgemental garbage would certainly do. Nominating Rick Santorum is exactly what Obama wants.

Leftist Michael Moore, labor unions and Obama supporters everywhere are cheering on Rick Santorum right now, because they know he would be easy to beat in November.

bluegill on March 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM

If the GOP primary voter were one person, it would be an idiot with ADD. Changing its mind every week, influenced by gust of wind, easily swayed by the last thing it saw, and completely gullible.

YYZ on March 2, 2012 at 8:54 AM

I disagree. Where you see the party as a bunch of idiots who cannot make up their minds, the reality is that there is a real conflict over what the party should stand for. That much is clear from the results. In Michigan, for example, Romney did well in the liberal parts of the state while Santorum took Western Michigan.

That the various states have different constituencies that either bolster or diminish one candidate’s fortunes or another is no reason for your snark and whining insistance that the GOP should already be unified between one candidate- presumably Romney. The fact of the matter is that not one of the remaining candidates have made the sale with those that are seriously looking at all the candidates instead of lining up behind Governor electable, Speaker Blowhard, or Senator “hey lets make birth control a thing in the middle of an economics election.”

Happy Nomad on March 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Saw Newt on Greta talking about Bibi Netanyahu visiting the White House nest week and what he would say to Bibi on that visit. The Greta asked “Well, would President Obama say that?” and Newt’s response reminds me why if Newt makes it to the Texas primary, I’m voting him.

Marcus on March 2, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Rasmussen Ohio poll this morning has Santorum +2, down from Santorum +18 in their last poll.

Jon0815 on March 2, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Rick Santorum is an unelectable loser, as more and more voters are discovering. Ohio Republicans know that if they vote for Rick Santorum, they are only helping Barack Obama.

Rick Santorum hasn’t even won a single real primary, while Mitt Romney has won FOUR actual primaries this year, including three in-a-row.

Theocrat bigot Rick Santorum is known for his crazy extreme social positions, and not much else. This guy Rick Santorum would be a disaster in the general.

bluegill on March 2, 2012 at 9:06 AM

bluegill on March 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM

I don’t know where your hatred of Santorum comes from. Some of it is irrational dislike by females.

That being said, why not bring up the fact that nominating Romney makes it very hard to debate economic issues since Romney’s track record is so very near that of Obama. A vote for Romney in the primaries is far more beneficial for Obama’s campaign than anything they can launch at Santorum.

Gingrich and Paul are so out of contention that they are not even worth considering unless Santorum or Romney does something so stupid they fall out of frontrunner status.

Happy Nomad on March 2, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Rick Santorum is the true establishment candidate. Yes, Rick Santorum is the favorite candidate… of the DEMOCRAT establishment.

The Democrats hope and pray that Rick Santorum is our nominee… since Rick Santorum would be so easy for Barack Obama to beat. Rick Santorum would be able to win only 4 states (5 states max) in the general and would put in jeopardy Republican hopes to gain a Senate majority and hold the House.

I’m sick of hearing about the unelectable Rick Santorum. The sooner this Republican primary season in-fighting is over, the better!

bluegill on March 2, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Today, Santorum +4. Four days ago, Santorum +7. There is no movement. Everything is within the margin of error.

Emperor Norton on March 2, 2012 at 9:09 AM

Romney has overcome an 18 point deficit in a week. Santorum’s tactics in Michigan and his weakness with the Catholic voters has doomed his presidential bid

I think the robocall made people mad. It seemed a little petty of Romney to go after Santorum over it, but it was smart politically for him to do that. Romney seems to very rarely do the right thing politically, but that is another story.

earlgrey133 on March 2, 2012 at 9:09 AM

Not when you handicap the competition as they’re doing. Making sure if something goes wrong, Romney has a back up. If they can change the rules in Michigan, allow all the candidates to be on the ballot in Virginia and Rhode Island. If Romney’s such a sure thing, then his campaign and the establishment have nothing to worry about…or do they? It seems the money momentum is picking up steam and I don’t like that.

mozalf on March 2, 2012 at 9:01 AM

It’s not the establishment’s job to retroactively change the rules in Virginia to allow Santorum(and Newt for that matter) on the ballot. They had plenty of time to get enough signatures to qualify, but they didn’t. Even Perry who had a pretty solid organization in place couldn’t get his @#$% together in time. Now if Rick and Newt wanna contest the winner take all format in Florida, there is a case to be made there. But Virginia is entirely their fault.

Doughboy on March 2, 2012 at 9:10 AM

The establishment isn’t picking anyone. The people are voting and a majority are going for Romney. It’s not like every “anti-Romney” candidate(with the exception of Huntsman and Paul) hasn’t been given their shot to make their case to the voters, but each one has come up short when they needed to step up and close the deal.
Doughboy on March 2, 2012 at 9:00 AM

This. I now regret and apologize for calling you dough-head when you made a really dough-headed comment recently.

Basilsbest on March 2, 2012 at 9:11 AM

Don’t allow the media and the republican establishment to pick our candidate.

mozalf on March 2, 2012 at 8:50 AM

too late!

ted c on March 2, 2012 at 9:12 AM

This. I now regret and apologize for calling you dough-head when you made a really dough-headed comment recently.

Basilsbest on March 2, 2012 at 9:11 AM

[crunch] Apology accepted, Captain Needa.

Doughboy on March 2, 2012 at 9:12 AM

I have half a thought to support Santorum just to extend the fight all the way to Tampa. It will be an immense pleasure to see Romney kneel before Uncle Zod begging for his delegates.

Archivarix on March 2, 2012 at 9:13 AM

MITT DRUDGE a/k/a MATT ROMNEY

…is about to have a WEBGASM over at his site trumpeting the “SURGE” of his other half.

PappyD61 on March 2, 2012 at 9:13 AM

It’s not the establishment’s job to retroactively change the rules in Virginia to allow Santorum(and Newt for that matter) on the ballot. They had plenty of time to get enough signatures to qualify, but they didn’t. Even Perry who had a pretty solid organization in place couldn’t get his @#$% together in time. Now if Rick and Newt wanna contest the winner take all format in Florida, there is a case to be made there. But Virginia is entirely their fault. Doughboy on March 2, 2012 at 9:10 AM

And this. I love honest and intelligent comments.

Basilsbest on March 2, 2012 at 9:14 AM

The Effit Factor is officially in play. God keep Romney away from NASCAR this weekend. Let’s end this.

EricW on March 2, 2012 at 9:15 AM

I’m sick of my only option being which establishment candidate can you stomach the most? How many times will we have to say “I don’t really like any of them, but…” and vote right down party line. I’m 29. I voted for the “compassionate conservative” Bush in 2000 because he was the republican. I defended the hell out of him and voted for him again in 2004, obviously, because he was the republican. Same in ’08. I naively wanted Romney, but voted McCain (like there is any difference) so I could help the team win.

I listened to Rush and Levin and Glenn. I watched Foxnews and only Foxnews, regularly. I’d brag about how “I don’t watch the mainstream media” unable to see the irony that Fox has more viewers than every other cable news channel combined. I would go to Drudge multiple times daily and keep up with only the news cycle that he peddled. I was informed. I knew I was informed. Liberals know nothing, liberals hate and are destroying this country, liberals don’t care about patriotism OR the constitution OR freedom, blah, blah, blah. While that’s true, they don’t :D I was never looking at the other side of the same coin. Why hadn’t they informed me of the path of destruction, debt, and disregard for our Constitution that the “conservative” majority Congress and Bush had actively been undertaking for the last two decades? Why don’t they ever talk about how deficit spending really started under Reagan, ramped up with Clinton, and then exploded with Bush? And why wasn’t I smart enough to see through it?

The reason is that the “conservative” party was hijacked long before many of us were ever born and we’ve never gotten a chance to truly appreciate or learn about what REAL conservatism is. We get accustomed to getting our news from comfortable sources. Sources that reinforce our beliefs, regardless of whether or not they are right. Here’s something everyone should know: Ron Paul is the last remnant of what, for the majority of our nation’s history, was considered conservative.

You hear Rush or Levin say “neo-cons” and immediately you think of the David Frums or David Brooks or Bill Kristols. But in reality, they don’t even realize that they should be looking in the mirror. It’s every program on Fox; it’s all the talk radio personalities “conservatives” adore as these brilliant beacons of truth and knowledge. Hannity is one of the most vocal with his, “I’m not a republican, I’m a conservative.” Whether its self-delusion or just ignorance, I couldn’t tell you. Do I think these guys lack intelligence? Absolutely not. They have accrued a lifetime of knowledge and on many subjects, they are spot on. The problem is that very often they are not right and their influence is so pervasive that many people blindly follow them regardless. Myself included for a long time.

My awakening came just last spring when I got into an argument over our foreign policy. I rattled off all the talking points I had come to know as truth. “The world needs us to keep them safe. They might act like they hate us, but we’ll see who they call when they need help. The terrorists attacked us for our freedom, our ideals, our culture, etc.” It wasn’t until I decided to open a book to better educate myself on why I believed, what I believed, that I realized how misinformed I had been. Have you ever said, “I like Ron Paul, except for his foreign policy?” I did too, frequently. If you ask the average GOP voter to describe RP’s foreign policy in one word the most frequent responses would be “crazy” “dangerous” or “isolationist.”

How could a guy so spot on about economic and domestic policy be so wrong on foreign policy? To better understand this I decided to read his book The Revolution: A Manifesto and got to see his views straight from his pen, without the bias.

Consider my amazement when he tried to defend his positions by quoting from the founding fathers: Washington, Jefferson, and Adams. Wait…what? That can’t be. These same founding fathers that we hold in such high esteem shared the same foreign policy views as “crazy, isolationist” Ron Paul? It couldn’t be, yet it was staring me right in the face. If you don’t believe me, look it up for yourself. I read on. He considered himself not an isolationist, but a noninterventionist. If you’re anything like I was, you’re probably thinking, what’s the difference?

Consider this quote:

“It is easy to dismiss the noninterventionist view as the quaint aspiration of men who lived in a less complicated world, but it’s not so easy to demonstrate how current policies serve any national interest at all. Perhaps an honest examination of the history of American interventionism in the twentieth century, from Korea to Kosovo to the Middle East, would reveal that the Founding Fathers foresaw more than we think.

Anyone who advocates the noninterventionist foreign policy of the Founding Fathers can expect to be derided as an isolationist. I myself have never been an isolationist. I favor the exact opposite of isolation: diplomacy, free trade, and freedom of travel. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seeking change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example. The real isolationists are those who isolate their country in the court of world opinion by pursuing needless belligerence and war that have nothing to do with legitimate national security concerns.”

That was enlightening truth straight from the mind of Ron Paul. Have any of you ever heard his foreign policy presented like that? I hadn’t. If you have and still consider him nuts, than I’m sorry I’ve wasted your time and you can just quit reading because I doubt anything else I can say will sway you. When you understand that though and really think about it, it’s no wonder the soldiers overwhelmingly support him, receiving five times the military donations as every other candidate combined. Unlike EVERY OTHER candidate who are all bankrolled by giant corporations and Wall Street, Ron Paul’s top 3 donors come from individuals in the US Army, US Air Force, and US Navy. Maybe instead of throwing that yellow ribbon on the back of your car, you actually listen to and support the troops. You know those same troops who support Ron Paul. Its sad how those who rail on about the injustices and dangers of governmental intervention in our country, fail to even question when we pursue the same actions overseas.

After understanding his views and finding myself agreeing with them, I decided to consider the whole package. Here we have a candidate who went to Washington D.C. having already served a lifetime in the private sector as an OB/GYN. Spurred to action by a deep understanding of history, our Constitution and sound economic policy and foreseeing the dangers inherent in the direction the country was headed, set out to make a difference. His principles were grounded in the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and knowledge of Austrian Economics. It’s easy to be consistent when you know what you believe in and have a framework on which you base your decisions, the Constitution. He never once voted to raise taxes, never once voted for an unbalanced budget, never once voted for anything he wasn’t expressly permitted to by his oath of office to that founding document.

There’s a reason he is never attacked on his record, it’s because they can’t. It’s flawless and purely consistent. There’s a reason he was the lone no vote in congress, over and over again, on bill after bill. He didn’t have the authority. Imagine how much integrity and personal courage it took to take that stand, time and time again, all the while knowing he was going to be labeled a kook or unpatriotic because of it. Imagine the patience of this man, surrounded by the cesspool of corrupt, ignorant, opportunists in politics only for the fame and fortune, shining the beacon of individual liberty and steadfastly moving onward converting followers’ one person at a time. They say that once you become a Ron Paul supporter, you’re a supporter for life. I believe that to be true. The message of true liberty, once understood, is too powerful.

It’s because of Dr. Ron Paul that for the first time in my life I’ve donated politically, volunteered for a campaign, sought to educate myself more fully on economics, history, the Constitution, the dangers of the Federal Reserve and interventionism (foreign and domestic) and why I believe what I believe. Finally, I’ve got a candidate that I want to vote for; I’m excited to vote for and will do what I can to inspire others to vote for. That’s why myself and millions like me will be voting for Ron Paul and no one else. The GOP can once again nominate whatever puppet, establishment candidate, they’d like. And when Obama wins re-election, you can all stand around scratching your heads and pondering why, but just remember that I tried to warn you.

*Letter written by KingDiz, via DailyPaul

dom89031 on March 2, 2012 at 9:15 AM

bluegill on March 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM

I so wish you would be banned from this site. You add nothing but insults to candidates and other posters on this site. You and the other rabid Mitt-wits are part of the reason I’ve come to detest Romney–and I supported him in 2008. Great job.

KickandSwimMom on March 2, 2012 at 9:17 AM

That being said, why not bring up the fact that nominating Romney makes it very hard to debate economic issues since Romney’s track record is so very near that of Obama. A vote for Romney in the primaries is far more beneficial for Obama’s campaign than anything they can launch at Santorum.

Happy Nomad on March 2, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Why would Romney have a hard time debating economic issues? Granted, MassachusettEs didn’t exactly dominate the other 56 states in job creation when he was governor, but their unemployment rate was respectable at the time. And he does have a lifetime’s worth of private sector experience that Obama lacks. Not to mention the inescapable truth that Obama’s economic record requires an inordinate amount of spin simply to come off as mediocre.

Now if you told me he’d have trouble debating health care, you’d be right. He’ll rely on the “states rights” argument, but it’s a weak defense of Romneycare. But economics will be his strength in this election. At least it better be.

Doughboy on March 2, 2012 at 9:17 AM

MITT DRUDGE a/k/a MATT ROMNEY

…is about to have a WEBGASM over at his site trumpeting the “SURGE” of his other half.

PappyD61 on March 2, 2012 at 9:13 AM

I love Drudge, Ann Coulter (when she’s sane), and Fox News but you can see that money talks and these guys, while close to my own philosophical beliefs, are going to go where the money is. And the way Fox News anchors are pushing Romney and look sick to their stomachs when reporting bad news about his campaign, it’s obvious they’ve gotten their talking points from his campaign. And Drudge and Ann C. worship at the altars of…Drudge and Ann C. first.

mozalf on March 2, 2012 at 9:18 AM

I read once that Johnny Rotten said. upon hearing of his former band mate’s OD, “poor Sid, he believed his own image.”

Poor Rick, he believed his own image.

He won a couple of delegate-free beauty contests and decided that Jesus had sent him to earth to bring the Truth about college, the pill and John F. Kennedy. And once the inner Rick started coming out, people realized that he was no more balanced than Sid had been. Intoxicated by his sudden notoriety, but ultimately without anything important to say.

It’s all Romney now.

urban elitist on March 2, 2012 at 9:18 AM

You and the other rabid Mitt-wits are part of the reason I’ve come to detest Romney–and I supported him in 2008. Great job.

KickandSwimMom on March 2, 2012 at 9:17 AM

That’s what he and ‘jailbreak’ are paid for, silly.

Archivarix on March 2, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Why is it that many of the Romney supporters at least at this site seem to be like the hatefull left. I admit I didn’t think squishiness brought out so much passion.

celtic warrior on March 2, 2012 at 9:21 AM

It’s not the establishment’s job to retroactively change the rules in Virginia to allow Santorum(and Newt for that matter) on the ballot. They had plenty of time to get enough signatures to qualify, but they didn’t. Even Perry who had a pretty solid organization in place couldn’t get his @#$% together in time. Now if Rick and Newt wanna contest the winner take all format in Florida, there is a case to be made there. But Virginia is entirely their fault.

Doughboy on March 2, 2012 at 9:10 AM

Well, from what’s being reported then if they can change the rules in Michigan, why not in Virginia? You can bet that if it was Romney off of the ballot, McDonnell and Cuccinelli would be tripping over themselves getting the VA republican party to change that. It still stinks no matter how much lipstick you put on that pig.

mozalf on March 2, 2012 at 9:23 AM

bluegill on March 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Jesus, dude, dial it back a bit.

I mean, I find Rick Santorum utterly abhorrent. I don’t even really believe he’s a particularly good human being at heart. But your ranting about him is a bit much at times.

Vyce on March 2, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Not to mention the establishment cooking the books for Romney the way they changed the rules in Michigan after-the-fact to award Romney delegates that should have been apportioned proportionally.

Happy Nomad on March 2, 2012 at 8:47 AM

♫♪ Oo-oo that smell,
Can’t you smell that smell?
Oo-oo that smell …
The smell of death’s around you
♫♪

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6q9nBusrq8

Saint Rick got ripped off by the Mormon Machine.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on March 2, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Well, from what’s being reported then if they can change the rules in Michigan, why not in Virginia? You can bet that if it was Romney off of the ballot, McDonnell and Cuccinelli would be tripping over themselves getting the VA republican party to change that. It still stinks no matter how much lipstick you put on that pig.

mozalf on March 2, 2012 at 9:23 AM

I’m not gonna sit here and pretend I know anything about how the proportional allocation of delegates works. All I can say is it’s a messy process given what the Dems went through 4 years ago.

What I do know is that the awarding of delegates is not the same as qualifying to have your name on a ballot. That’s pretty cut and dry. You get the required number of signatures. You make sure they’re valid(in fairness, this is where the process could get corrupted). And your name is placed on the ballot.

It’s not like the establishment stacked the deck against Rick Santorum. Given that not only his campaign, but everyone else’s except for Romney’s and Paul’s failed to qualify in time tells me that there was a major deficiency in organization on their part. While that sucks for the voters in that state, you can’t blame the establishment for that.

Doughboy on March 2, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Why is it that many of the Romney supporters at least at this site seem to be like the hatefull left.
celtic warrior on March 2, 2012 at 9:21 AM

I could turn around and ask the same of the “anybody but Romney” supporters, who, in typical leftist fashion, have been stylizing us moderates and independents as “The Other” for months now, as justification for treating us as creatures every bit as vile as the most hated leftist.

Which is fine, at least IMO, because I have my Big Boy pants on and can take the insults (and rather find them amusing), but what affronts me is the hypocrisy wherein you guys act as if you are always the maligned, never the aggressor.

Vyce on March 2, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Well, from what’s being reported then if they can change the rules in Michigan, why not in Virginia? You can bet that if it was Romney off of the ballot, McDonnell and Cuccinelli would be tripping over themselves getting the VA republican party to change that. It still stinks no matter how much lipstick you put on that pig.

mozalf on March 2, 2012 at 9:23 AM

Romney actually had a coherent campaign so he did in fact manage to get on every ballot. The same cannot be said for the others. Somehow RON PAUL managed to get on, but the technocrat and alleged smart guy Gingrich did not. Neither did Santorum.

antisense on March 2, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Quick! Rickie, call Michael Moore!

crash72 on March 2, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Not to mention the establishment cooking the books for Romney the way they changed the rules in Michigan after-the-fact to award Romney delegates that should have been apportioned proportionally.

Happy Nomad on March 2, 2012 at 8:47 AM

As a Romney supporter, I have to agree that this looks bad. Just give Santorum the extra delegate and be done with it. Even if the original memo was mis-worded.

Syzygy on March 2, 2012 at 9:31 AM

I’m not gonna sit here and pretend I know anything about how the proportional allocation of delegates works. All I can say is it’s a messy process given what the Dems went through 4 years ago.

What I do know is that the awarding of delegates is not the same as qualifying to have your name on a ballot. That’s pretty cut and dry. You get the required number of signatures. You make sure they’re valid(in fairness, this is where the process could get corrupted). And your name is placed on the ballot.

It’s not like the establishment stacked the deck against Rick Santorum. Given that not only his campaign, but everyone else’s except for Romney’s and Paul’s failed to qualify in time tells me that there was a major deficiency in organization on their part. While that sucks for the voters in that state, you can’t blame the establishment for that.

Doughboy on March 2, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Well it’s a sad commentary on the republican party when money seems to be the main driving factor. We’re turning into democrats. Instead, with an election this important, ALL the qualified candidates should be on ALL the state ballots at this point in the process. Not penalize them for being underfunded, etc. Sounds more like an estate sale going to the highest bidder and the end result will not pass the smell test. Still a pig no matter how much lipstick you put on it. sorry.

mozalf on March 2, 2012 at 9:32 AM

bluegill on March 2, 2012 at 9:08 AM

There’s not enough Republicans to go around to beat Obama. We’re going to need Democrats and Independents to do it.

P.S. You’re obnoxious

gracie on March 2, 2012 at 9:34 AM

love Drudge, Ann Coulter (when she’s sane), and Fox News

mozalf on March 2, 2012 at 9:18 AM

When has Ann Coulter been sane? Certainly not anytime recently. Though I do give her one point in her incessant attacks on anybody who is not Mitt Romney- The perception is that Santorum’s most passionate issues are less Presidential than things he could do something about as a governor. Coulter has used Santorum’s interest in social issues to make the best case an enemy could use against him. I don’t think she is entirely right in her recounting of Santorum’s record but that is what you would expect from a pro-Romney propagandist who has never been overly concerned about truth if it gets in the way of snark.

Happy Nomad on March 2, 2012 at 9:36 AM

When has Ann Coulter been sane? Certainly not anytime recently. Though I do give her one point in her incessant attacks on anybody who is not Mitt Romney- The perception is that Santorum’s most passionate issues are less Presidential than things he could do something about as a governor. Coulter has used Santorum’s interest in social issues to make the best case an enemy could use against him. I don’t think she is entirely right in her recounting of Santorum’s record but that is what you would expect from a pro-Romney propagandist who has never been overly concerned about truth if it gets in the way of snark.

Happy Nomad on March 2, 2012 at 9:36 AM

You make a good point. I’ve liked a lot of what Ann Coulter has written in the past. Now, I’m not sure anymore. I kind of see her as an opportunist now. I mean with Mitt Romney, it’s a win/win for her. I’m postitive he’s going to lose against Obama (as she may be also, who knows?) and she can write articles and books to her hearts’ content complaining. If he’d win by a freak of nature, he’ll be so weak and a disaster she can write articles and books to her hearts’ content complaining. I hate to say it, but it’s obviously more of a monetary boon to her to back a non-conservative.

mozalf on March 2, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Ohio is an open primary isn’t it? Think Santorum will pick up 100K union Democratic votes? I think he may have picked up 50K in MI. Romney is so easy to dislike, isn’t he.

gracie on March 2, 2012 at 9:39 AM

As a Romney supporter, I have to agree that this looks bad. Just give Santorum the extra delegate and be done with it. Even if the original memo was mis-worded.

although I agree it may Look bad I have started to go to frontloading Hq whick is expert in the new allocation rules.

although each satate decides allocation for themselves the original rule for the michigan primary 2 overall delegates will be given to the winner. at no time were they said to give the two overall delegates proportionally. the rules were 2 per congressional district and 2 to overall winner.

gerrym51 on March 2, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Ed,

Your shilling for Santorum Is REALLY starting to get embarrassing.
You should change the sites Name to “Santorums Hot Air ”

gerry-mittbot-lol

gerrym51 on March 2, 2012 at 9:41 AM

As a Romney supporter, I have to agree that this looks bad. Just give Santorum the extra delegate and be done with it. Even if the original memo was mis-worded.

Syzygy on March 2, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Exactly. It isn’t as if one delegate is going to make the difference and if they can change the rules after-the-fact (which smacks of being undemocratic), what is to stop the national GOP from deciding that all those states penalized for holding early primaries do indeed get to seat the full allocation of voting delegates and potentially throwing the election to a particular candidate? In short, the MI GOP did something that Democrats would do. They should be called on it even if it is only one delegate.

BTW, Virginia is another story entirely despite the attempts of some to make the case that there are similarities. The rules in Virginia were clear and Santorum failed to make the deadline for collecting signatures. I’m not happy only having a choice between Romney and Paul but the fact of the matter is that only two people managed to qualify. Virginia’s GOP is going have to figure out if the rules really are too restrictive or whether Santorum, Gingrich, et. al. simply had a poor organization in the Old Dominion. In Gingrich’s case, I have anecdotal evidence that he simply didn’t do a good job of collecting signatures.

Happy Nomad on March 2, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Why is it that many of the Romney supporters at least at this site seem to be like the hatefull left. I admit I didn’t think squishiness brought out so much passion.

celtic warrior on March 2, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Yeah, I find that odd as well. I know a few Romney supporters, and while they usually have their talking points in order I would never use the word “passionate” to describe them. It’s as if they realize their candidate is the “guy who made the fewest mistakes” candidate. It’s almost like someone telling you how much fiber is in their oatmeal. It may be good for you, but it ain’t very exciting.

Not to say that that unrestrained passion is the anwser, either. I know Santorum followers that are passionate to the point of incoherence on some things. But that’s to be expected when religion gets into the mix, and so when someone goes a bit berserk defending Santorum, I’m not that surprised – the online population pretty much mirrors the real world Santorum community.

But what I don’t understand is the incendiary anti-not-Romney rhetoric from a few of the more vocal posters here. The folks who support Romney are calm and business like and sometimes almost apologetic (yeah, but Romneycare isn’t really Obamacare). I don’t know any Romney supporters with the virulence of, say, Bluegill.

I just keep thinking, “They doth protest too much.”

AJsDaddie on March 2, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Well it’s a sad commentary on the republican party when money seems to be the main driving factor. We’re turning into democrats. Instead, with an election this important, ALL the qualified candidates should be on ALL the state ballots at this point in the process. Not penalize them for being underfunded, etc. Sounds more like an estate sale going to the highest bidder and the end result will not pass the smell test. Still a pig no matter how much lipstick you put on it. sorry.

mozalf on March 2, 2012 at 9:32 AM

There’s a process for determining whether or not a candidate is “qualified” – otherwise it becomes purely subjective. This process involves getting the requisite number of signatures. Has nothing to do with money.

gotsig on March 2, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Well it’s a sad commentary on the republican party when money seems to be the main driving factor.

mozalf on March 2, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Please. It wasn’t a lack of money that prevented Santorum and Gingrich from getting on the ballot in Virginia. It was lack of organization and support.

Syzygy on March 2, 2012 at 9:48 AM

When has Ann Coulter been sane? Certainly not anytime recently.

She’s another obnoxious one. Plus her long dumb blonde hair (bad styling for a mature woman)enhances her turkey neck which actually reminds me of the real cow trachea chews I buy at the feed store to give my Rottweiler Daisy to munch on. Meow.

gracie on March 2, 2012 at 9:49 AM

BTW, Virginia is another story entirely despite the attempts of some to make the case that there are similarities. The rules in Virginia were clear and Santorum failed to make the deadline for collecting signatures. I’m not happy only having a choice between Romney and Paul but the fact of the matter is that only two people managed to qualify. Virginia’s GOP is going have to figure out if the rules really are too restrictive or whether Santorum, Gingrich, et. al. simply had a poor organization in the Old Dominion. In Gingrich’s case, I have anecdotal evidence that he simply didn’t do a good job of collecting signatures.

Happy Nomad on March 2, 2012 at 9:42 AM

I can identify. Here in the District of Columbia, where we republicans are a rare lot, I have to vote for Newt Gingrich. A man I respect a lot but do not back for president. So I have to vote against Romney in this case and not for someone since we’re not given all the choices. Plus when we do vote as republicans in D.C. we obviously stand out so we suddenly get targetted for all kinds of violations, penalites, jury duty, etc. by the D.C. govt. and I’m not sure depending on the outcome of all this whether it will be worth the hassles or make any difference in the general anyway.

mozalf on March 2, 2012 at 9:50 AM

There’s a process for determining whether or not a candidate is “qualified” – otherwise it becomes purely subjective. This process involves getting the requisite number of signatures. Has nothing to do with money.

gotsig on March 2, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Yes it does. You have to have paid staff and such to organize even the volunteers to primary the states and collect. Especially the large ones. They need to open these primaries up to all, not just the richest.

mozalf on March 2, 2012 at 9:52 AM

The folks who support Romney are calm and business like and sometimes almost apologetic (yeah, but Romneycare isn’t really Obamacare).

AJsDaddie on March 2, 2012 at 9:43 AM

You’ve got to be kidding or have a reading comprehension problem. There have been many pro-Romney postings that have been vitriolic and irrational defense of their guy while attacking other candidates.

But more to the point, I don’t want a calm and business-like band of supporters. Do you not remember John McCain’s campaign? The fact of the matter is I want passionate supporters who are willing to do the grassroots kind of activism that translates passion into people standing in line on November 6th to cast their vote against the status quo of four more years of Obama and a split Congress with the Senate in complete gridlock. Not to mention throwing out state and local Democrats in a show of disgust about the entire filthy party. That doesn’t come from a band of calm and business-like supporters making the absurd claim that Romneycare isn’t a thing like Obamacare based on a very weak states’ right argument.

Happy Nomad on March 2, 2012 at 9:54 AM

The numbers will continue to drop with every stupid thing that he, or his campaign, says.

Today, apparently Romney is a cheater who is stealing delegates in Michigan.

Can someone remind me why Newt Gingrich is considered the loose canon?

milcus on March 2, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Plus when we do vote as republicans in D.C. we obviously stand out so we suddenly get targetted for all kinds of violations, penalites, jury duty, etc. by the D.C. govt. and I’m not sure depending on the outcome of all this whether it will be worth the hassles or make any difference in the general anyway.

mozalf on March 2, 2012 at 9:50 AM

The folks I know who live in DC tell me that the frequency of jury duty is absurd. Beyond that, I hear your frustration. How do you get anything done in a city where one party is so dominant that there is no question about the outcome of any election? Even when the city council is so corrupt that there is a revolving door of council members and idiots like Marion Barry are still around in a position of power.

Happy Nomad on March 2, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Well it’s a sad commentary on the republican party when money seems to be the main driving factor. We’re turning into democrats. Instead, with an election this important, ALL the qualified candidates should be on ALL the state ballots at this point in the process. Not penalize them for being underfunded, etc. Sounds more like an estate sale going to the highest bidder and the end result will not pass the smell test. Still a pig no matter how much lipstick you put on it. sorry.

mozalf on March 2, 2012 at 9:32 AM

A primary is as much a test of a given candidate’s ability to put together and manage a campaign organization as much as anything else. Poor organization and mismanagement of resources is a direct expression of poor leadership and an accurate indicator of bad judgement. Michele Bachmann, God love her, ran a poorly managed campaign. Her hiring of Ed Rollins is a good example of bad judgement. Her reliance on her husband, a political novice, to assist in formulating campaign strategy was another. I liked Bachmann, too, but knew early on she wasn’t ready for the big leagues of national-level politics. Rick Perry’s lack of preparation also comes to mind. Running for POTUS isn’t something one does on the fly. If your guy can’t make the ballot because his campaign didn’t get the required number of signatures, that means your guy didn’t make the right choices when it came to picking the people who would be competent enough to ensure it was done, and this is the guy you want picking Supreme Court justices? Chairman of the Joint Chiefs?

About money. These accusations Romney is somehow buying the nomination are nonsense, although with his vast personal fortune he could probably bankroll a primary bid on his own, without fundraising from anyone. Historically, those who have attempted to buy their way into high office invariably fail, although rich man vanity campaigns are capable of doing great damage to the process. Look at Ross Perot. He gave us Bill Clinton.

Aside from the fact that campaigns practically rely on money to pay for ads and meet staffing payroll and other expenses, the amount of money a candidate can raise speaks to that candidate’s ability to convince and persuade, another essential trait of a good president.

Finally, since money walks and talks and pays the bills, I donate (necessarily modest amounts) to the campaigns of candidates I support. However, as a Romney supporter, the irony isn’t lost on me when I’m sending off checks to a multi-millionaire.

troyriser_gopftw on March 2, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Ohio is an open primary isn’t it? Think Santorum will pick up 100K union Democratic votes? I think he may have picked up 50K in MI. Romney is so easy to dislike, isn’t he.

gracie on March 2, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Gracie, you’re kidding yourself. Those union voters Santorum picked up WILL NOT VOTE FOR HIM IN THE FALL. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking Romney.

rhombus on March 2, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Can someone remind me why Newt Gingrich is considered the loose canon?

milcus on March 2, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Does it matter? He is irrelevant at this point.

Happy Nomad on March 2, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Romney may be the establishment candidate but the truth is noone compelling ever got into the race. I was hoping Rick Perry was gonna be that guy but he fizzled. All of the candidates have big vunerabilities.Long rants about Ron Paul or why Santorum is a bigot dont really persuade people they just irritate people and make you sound like a nut

ldbgcoleman on March 2, 2012 at 10:09 AM

You’ve got to be kidding or have a reading comprehension problem. There have been many pro-Romney postings that have been vitriolic and irrational defense of their guy while attacking other candidates.

Wow. Talk about reading comprehension problems. Take a breath, go back and re-read my post. I was comparing real people I know vs. the posters here. The real people I know who support Romney are pretty rational folks. Squishy and often a little confused about conservative positions, but rational. As opposed to the posters here who tend to be over the top screaming lunatics. I was remarking that the posters here who support Santorum (and Gingrich and Paul for that matter) tend to mirror their real world counterparts. The online Romney supporters, on the other hand, are nothing like the real world Romney supporters, in my experience. I don’t know what to make of that discrepancy.

But more to the point, I don’t want a calm and business-like band of supporters. Do you not remember John McCain’s campaign? The fact of the matter is I want passionate supporters who are willing to do the grassroots kind of activism that translates passion into people standing in line on November 6th to cast their vote against the status quo of four more years of Obama and a split Congress with the Senate in complete gridlock. Not to mention throwing out state and local Democrats in a show of disgust about the entire filthy party. That doesn’t come from a band of calm and business-like supporters making the absurd claim that Romneycare isn’t a thing like Obamacare based on a very weak states’ right argument.

I understand your point. If you didn’t know already, I’m not a Romney guy. I like Santorum and I know enough about his actual votes to know that he has no intention of trying to legislate religion. I’m thrilled that someone of faith and conscience isn’t afraid to admit it, but he plays into the media’s hands by giving his social opinions more play than his economic positions. He needs to write some carefully crafted position papers on the social issues and then take every so-con question and say “my positions on that are public, but we need to focus on the real issues that threaten America: the skyrocketing national debt, crippling unemployment and an administration that shackles us to foreign energy”.

If he can’t do that, then we’re going to get Romney and then I have to figure out how to live with the more virulent of the Romney supporters.

AJsDaddie on March 2, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Does it matter? He is irrelevant at this point.

Happy Nomad on March 2, 2012 at 10:02 AM

He is still running. But that was the major knock on Newt. And yet Santorum literally says something stupid almost every time he talks to someone, and it gets brushed aside. And I am wondering why that is not a knock against him.

I think there is much higher probability of Santorum, if he is the nominee, saying something really dumb in October than of Newt doing the same.

milcus on March 2, 2012 at 10:11 AM

One thing I am pasionate about is getting rid of Obama so Im ready to roll up my sleeves when we do get a candidate.

ldbgcoleman on March 2, 2012 at 10:15 AM

A primary is as much a test of a given candidate’s ability to put together and manage a campaign organization as much as anything else. Poor organization and mismanagement of resources is a direct expression of poor leadership and an accurate indicator of bad judgement. Michele Bachmann, God love her, ran a poorly managed campaign. Her hiring of Ed Rollins is a good example of bad judgement. Her reliance on her husband, a political novice, to assist in formulating campaign strategy was another. I liked Bachmann, too, but knew early on she wasn’t ready for the big leagues of national-level politics. Rick Perry’s lack of preparation also comes to mind. Running for POTUS isn’t something one does on the fly. If your guy can’t make the ballot because his campaign didn’t get the required number of signatures, that means your guy didn’t make the right choices when it came to picking the people who would be competent enough to ensure it was done, and this is the guy you want picking Supreme Court justices? Chairman of the Joint Chiefs?

About money. These accusations Romney is somehow buying the nomination are nonsense, although with his vast personal fortune he could probably bankroll a primary bid on his own, without fundraising from anyone. Historically, those who have attempted to buy their way into high office invariably fail, although rich man vanity campaigns are capable of doing great damage to the process. Look at Ross Perot. He gave us Bill Clinton.

Aside from the fact that campaigns practically rely on money to pay for ads and meet staffing payroll and other expenses, the amount of money a candidate can raise speaks to that candidate’s ability to convince and persuade, another essential trait of a good president.

Finally, since money walks and talks and pays the bills, I donate (necessarily modest amounts) to the campaigns of candidates I support. However, as a Romney supporter, the irony isn’t lost on me when I’m sending off checks to a multi-millionaire.

troyriser_gopftw on March 2, 2012 at 10:00 AM

The points you make, make me even more convinced that all the candidates should be allowed to participate. They may not have had the financial capability to raise the needed funds to pay ground workers at the beginning. But it’s become more than obvious as the process has played out that this year is very different from all previous primaries. Why else would they keep trying to tell us it was over after Iowa, then N. Hampshire, then Nevada, now Michigan/Arizona and discourage people from voting. There is a ground swell against the usual way of doing republican business and I feel very strongly that they should make plenty of exceptions this time around. It’s TOO important to allow technicalities dictate who the nominee is going to be. It’s not an American Idol contest. Especially money getting thrown around. Otherwise, George Soros would be qualified to be a republican nominee with these standards.

mozalf on March 2, 2012 at 10:19 AM

and 42 – 25 percent among Tea Party members

This has to be the most troubling sign that the Tea Party has jumped the shark. Sanatorum is the polar opposite of the Tea Party movement.

DaveO on March 2, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Gracie, you’re kidding yourself. Those union voters Santorum picked up WILL NOT VOTE FOR HIM IN THE FALL. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking Romney.
rhombus on March 2, 2012 at 10:02 AM

But Rhombus we still need them and so all the rotten talk about how rotten the Democrats are will not help. And I do believe that Santorum is a good alternative to Romney to capture the votes of the moderate and conservative Democrats.
By the way, I don’t want a ruthless man like Romney in the White House who will say and do anything to anybody to get there. I do not think Romney will succeed unless Breitbart’s tapes are so devastating to Obama that the Democrats will have to run someone else for President. Obama has the hearts and minds of his constituency. Romney does not and never will.

gracie on March 2, 2012 at 10:35 AM

It’s TOO important to allow technicalities dictate who the nominee is going to be. It’s not an American Idol contest. Especially money getting thrown around. Otherwise, George Soros would be qualified to be a republican nominee with these standards.

mozalf on March 2, 2012 at 10:19 AM

We’re not talking technicalities here. We’re talking about the nuts-and-bolts necessities of a political campaign. If you can’t be persuaded by logic and example as to why solid fundraising ability, strong and cohesive organization, and capable campaign leadership are requirements for a successful candidacy against President Obama in the general election, then that means you refuse to be persuaded. Your mind is set. If it helps, candidates who run badly managed campaigns and fail to garner financial support are called losers, because they lose. They can’t help but lose. I don’t know about you but as a Republican I want a GOP nominee able to take on the Chicago Machine and win. The stakes are too high and this isn’t a game for amateurs.

troyriser_gopftw on March 2, 2012 at 10:36 AM

From today’s Rasmussen poll:

If it’s a two-man race, Santorum and Romney are tied at 43% each. That, too, represents a huge change. Two weeks ago, Santorum led Romney by 28 points in a head-to-head matchup in Ohio.

How is this possible? Is YYZ right?:

If the GOP primary voter were one person, it would be an idiot with ADD. Changing its mind every week, influenced by gust of wind, easily swayed by the last thing it saw, and completely gullible.

bobs1196 on March 2, 2012 at 10:43 AM

We’re not talking technicalities here. We’re talking about the nuts-and-bolts necessities of a political campaign. If you can’t be persuaded by logic and example as to why solid fundraising ability, strong and cohesive organization, and capable campaign leadership are requirements for a successful candidacy against President Obama in the general election, then that means you refuse to be persuaded. Your mind is set. If it helps, candidates who run badly managed campaigns and fail to garner financial support are called losers, because they lose. They can’t help but lose. I don’t know about you but as a Republican I want a GOP nominee able to take on the Chicago Machine and win. The stakes are too high and this isn’t a game for amateurs.

troyriser_gopftw on March 2, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Then we’ll agree to disagree. It is “technicalities” not badly managed campaigns and because they did not have the financial backing to get a ground game of workers to collect signatures in time. And it’s more than more than painfully obvious that would not be the case today, especially because all have financial backing now. And we also agree that we want the strongest, most qualified, and able to take the Chicago Machine and win. Not just the win who wins by default and trickery and that’s what it’s beginning to look like. Sorry but that’s IMHO.

mozalf on March 2, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Today’s Rasmussen poll definitely shows that Saintorum’s run is effectively over. He will lose Ohio and the only possibilities of getting rid of Willard are a Newt comeback or a brokered convention. Otherwise Rubberman Hussein will crush Moroni’s hero and the march toward the leftist abyss bill accelerate.

Annar on March 2, 2012 at 10:46 AM

bluegill on March 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM

I so wish you would be banned from this site. You add nothing but insults to candidates and other posters on this site. You and the other rabid Mitt-wits are part of the reason I’ve come to detest Romney–and I supported him in 2008. Great job.

KickandSwimMom on March 2, 2012 at 9:17 AM

I completely agree.

GOPRanknFile on March 2, 2012 at 11:03 AM

The folks I know who live in DC tell me that the frequency of jury duty is absurd. Beyond that, I hear your frustration. How do you get anything done in a city where one party is so dominant that there is no question about the outcome of any election? Even when the city council is so corrupt that there is a revolving door of council members and idiots like Marion Barry are still around in a position of power.

Happy Nomad on March 2, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Interestingly enough, despite its infamously ingrained institutional corruption Chicago was for the longest time known as “the city that works”. Part of that was probably due to the dictatorial power of Da Mare, Richard Daley the elder, who made sure that the streets got cleaned and so on.

As long as there is enough money that both corruption and social services can work, corruption is often tolerated. I’m not saying that’s a good thing, but it is human nature. We have reached the point, though, where the corruption has become egregious while at the same time the money is gone. We may be at the tipping point, but those who live off the corruption are not going to let go lightly.

AJsDaddie on March 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM

KickandSwimMom on March 2, 2012 at 9:17 AM

I don’t believe you. I think you detest Romney all on your own.

gerry-mittbot-will vote for any nominee

gerrym51 on March 2, 2012 at 11:21 AM

The folks I know who live in DC tell me that the frequency of jury duty is absurd. Beyond that, I hear your frustration. How do you get anything done in a city where one party is so dominant that there is no question about the outcome of any election? Even when the city council is so corrupt that there is a revolving door of council members and idiots like Marion Barry are still around in a position of power.

Happy Nomad on March 2, 2012 at 9:58 AM
Interestingly enough, despite its infamously ingrained institutional corruption Chicago was for the longest time known as “the city that works”. Part of that was probably due to the dictatorial power of Da Mare, Richard Daley the elder, who made sure that the streets got cleaned and so on.

As long as there is enough money that both corruption and social services can work, corruption is often tolerated. I’m not saying that’s a good thing, but it is human nature. We have reached the point, though, where the corruption has become egregious while at the same time the money is gone. We may be at the tipping point, but those who live off the corruption are not going to let go lightly.

AJsDaddie on March 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Lol, even though I’m a native Washingtonian I’ve always used the corruption and incompetence of our local D.C. govt. as a perfect example of what happens when 1 political party is allowed to dominate and take power for too long. I wish the republicans would get an opportunity to clean things up here, but that will never happen in my lifetime. Plus, it’s demoralizing to see our neighbor Maryland getting dragged down by their idiot democrat governor, the democrat legislature, and even the moderate republicans. I’m also worried about my neighbor on the other side, Virginia. McDonnell is starting to slide a little, but my man, George Allen has some good momentum going for his Senate run. I can at least get excited about his race even though I’m not in Virginia. Which is why I’m so frustrated with Virginia and their presidential primary this year. But I’ve beaten that horse to death and more. I’m starting to get a bad feeling about this election.

mozalf on March 2, 2012 at 11:24 AM

I can at least get excited about his race even though I’m not in Virginia. Which is why I’m so frustrated with Virginia and their presidential primary this year. But I’ve beaten that horse to death and more. I’m starting to get a bad feeling about this election.

mozalf on March 2, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Talk to whomever you can and try to get them involved at the precinct level. Make sure to push for conservatives throughout the precinct and on up the ticket. Then, if the unthinkable happens and we get four more years of this, we can counter with a massive house/senate push in 2014. Otherwise by 2016 this country will no longer be a place where I want to raise AJ. I don’t know where we would go, but I know I won’t to live here.

AJsDaddie on March 2, 2012 at 11:30 AM

It’s not getting much play here, but the AFSCME (The state, county, and municipal employees union) is trying to do the same thing in Ohio that that the Democrats tried in Michigan, that is, spoil the race by getting Democrats to cross over in a semi-open primary vote for Santorum, when they fully intend to support Obama in November. If Santorum were a genuine conservative, this kind of endorsement would be toxic. It is, anyway, but he invited it with his election-eve stunt in Michigan.

Normally, this would be on Michelle Malkin’s beat. She’s been all over the SEIU and other government employees unions for years now, but she has declared for Santorum, and seems to be doing the same thing she skewers the Mainsteam Media for doing for Obama and the ultra-leftists, that is, ignoring the sins of her favorite. I guess bias isn’t all that easy to avoid all the time.

And perhaps since the lead bloggers here have taken after the Boss Emeritus and endorsed Santorum, they’re not covering this, either…it appeared briefly in the headlines here, but scrolled off. I’ve been following them for years, and respect them highly, especially Ed, but this time, they’ve gone astray. At least they’re not pretending to be objective and unbiased about it, but that small grace doesn’t fill the holes in the reporting.

If you look a little more closely at their records, the ideas that Santorum is the true conservative and Romney is the RINO are muddled of not actually reversed. Santorum was a supporter of Arlen Specter, who turned Democrat right when he could do the most damage, and his record has been pro-union, with a rather recent conversion to a right-to-work stance.

I keep saying Romneycare is NOT THE SAME THING as Obamacare, and I think MM was wrong about this, too. Some of the same paid consultants worked on both? That’s mighty thin evidence that they are exactly the same thing.

Romney’s program was being distorted by the Democrats in Massachussets almost as soon as it got passed. After that it was seized on and used by the ultraleftists in Congress, turned into an unconstitutional regulatory and financial nightmare, and rammed down the nation’s throat. Romney wasn’t in Congress, had nothing to do with that, and not even he can support it now. He wants it repealed, with the understandable provision that there may be something salvageable from the wreckage. I presume he is more familiar with that might be than the average voter who goes by sound bites.

Romney has taken some less than purely conservative positions on some complicated and difficult issues, but by the time these get boiled down to a few words and flung around by his political opponents, there are some gross distortions and outright lies about him in common circulation.

If there were any further doubt about it, this should kill the notion that the Democrats favor Romney against Obama. This becomes more evident all the time. They are not so confused as the Republicans about who their real opponent is. A vote for Santorum has become in effect a vote for Obama. That wasn’t clear before Michigan, but it is now.

Confutus on March 2, 2012 at 12:42 PM

I think its going to be a long weekend for Rick Santorum. He’s down, but not out and Romney still could go out and find a few more NASCAR owners that he knows and would like to share with us.

ted c on March 2, 2012 at 8:47 AM

I don’t understand why you love NASCAR, but go all OWS on the owners of the teams.

Gelsomina on March 2, 2012 at 1:09 PM

I so wish you would be banned from this site. You add nothing but insults to candidates and other posters on this site. You and the other rabid Mitt-wits are part of the reason I’ve come to detest Romney–and I supported him in 2008. Great job.

KickandSwimMom on March 2, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Yes. They are an unbelievably vile, profane bunch, aren’t they? They were all raised by the same standards and values as Mitt Romney. You ever want to know the soul of Mitt Romney, just look to bluelungs.

Portia46 on March 2, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Look, let’s get something straight. RINO Romney (aka Obama-Lite) is doing exactly what the attack machine for Obama is going to do (precisely why, among many other reasons, the evil George Soros says there’s “not a dime’s worth of difference” between them), minimize his record, which, despite running off at the mouth about how he fought for this or fought for that, it didn’t matter. His legislature pretty much steamrolled Willard (from the RAT movie of the same name), which means Willard (from the RAT movie of the same name) couldn’t even herd cats in his own legislature!?! How the hell is Willard going to herd cats in DC, a place that’s substanitally more professionally corrupt than Beacon Hill??? Oh, and by the way, WHEVEVER a politician says they are gonna fight for you, grab your wallet and head the other way, quick!?! DummycRATS have always declared they were “fighting for the middle class,” and honestly, just exactly where has all that fighting gotten us??? RINO Romney (aka Obama-Lite), utilizing Axelrod dirty tricks, HAS BOUGHT his way into primary victories, PERIOD!?! And that means that the poor folks in Florida and Iowa were BOUGHT AND PAID FOR (which doesn’t make them look too smart, but that’s MHIT-For-Brains for you)!?! Willard (from the RAT movie of the same name) LIED, and LIED, and LIED about Gingrich ALL OVER Florida and Iowa before that, and the folks there got INFECTED by the RepublicRAT establishment with MHIT-For-Brains, that dreaded LEMMING disease that ROBS conservatives of any semblence of common sense, and causes them to vote for LIBERALS!?! Nice goin’, STUPID Party!?! Newt Gingrich is the only candidate with real-time experience herding cats in DC, and yet there’s a bunch of snot-nosed, sniveling, weasals in DC who have long-overstayed their welcome, that get their PANTIES All wadded up, because Gingrich was tough in getting things like welfare reform and balanced budgets DONE!! TOO FREAKIN” BAD!?! Couldn’ possibly vote for RINO Romney (aka Obama-Lite), not in a million years!?! I like Rick, but Newt HAS gotten it done before, PERIOD! Baggage?? Baggage??? Don’t give a crap about no stinkin’ baggage!?!

Colatteral Damage on March 2, 2012 at 5:59 PM