The aftermath: Pack a lunch and a flashlight

posted at 8:40 am on March 7, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

Say, do you remember that time when Mitt Romney waded into the battle on Super Tuesday and knocked out his foes with an inspiring, decisive victory? Yeah… me neither. Last night had to be pretty much of a disappointment no matter who you happen to support. Allahpundit was covering it live, of course, but once all of the “victory party” hangovers have begun to fade, the results were less than impressive. We can justifiably say that Mitt “won” by racking up victories in Ohio, Massachusetts, Idaho, Virginia, Vermont and Alaska, along with a fairly impressive haul of delegates. But the Buckeye State victory came by a margin that wouldn’t fill up a decent college football game audience.

Rick Santorum pulled out some wins people didn’t expect in Tennessee, Oklahoma and North Dakota, which gives him more than ample reason to continue the long slog. (Newt took his home state which he apparently feels is reason enough to do the same.) Unfortunately, several analysts this morning have been running the numbers and, in order to reach the magic number, Santorum will need to take somewhere between 64 and 70 percent of the remaining delegates. How likely does that sound given the current climate?

Still, Jim Geraghty sees dark clouds on the horizon for Mr. Romney.

The losses in Georgia, Tennessee, and Oklahoma themselves aren’t bad, but Romney’s share of the vote is pretty disappointing: 26 percent in Georgia, 28 percent in Oklahoma, 28 percent in Tennessee. Throw in 24 percent in North Dakota.

I suppose he and his team can boast that they won Idaho (62 percent, even more than in Virginia) and Alaska (32 percent, 3 percentage points over Santorum).

But after last week’s big wins in Michigan and Arizona, we were supposed to see signs of the party starting to unify around Romney. Instead, the frontrunner has a problem with the Midwest and South that is keeping him at less than 3 in 10 right now. That was good enough for second place in most of these states, but that’s still setting a low bar – beat out Ron Paul and in most cases, Newt, who is becoming an afterthought. (More on this below.) Sure, Romney had a great night in terms of delegates. I stand by my assessment that his road to the nomination is the hardest, except for all of the others. But he’s still got glaring weaknesses in connecting with people.

When I was younger, back shortly after the invention of dinosaurs, guys would occasionally trade barbs with their friends, announcing that they were going to “kick their butt” over some joke or another. One of my favorite responses was, “you’d better pack a lunch and a flashlight, ’cause that’s gonna take all day and half the night.” I hope Mitt has brought along plenty to eat and adequate lighting, because even if he is going to win this thing eventually, Rick Santorum doesn’t look like he’s going anywhere any time soon.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

gotta sign off.. chores, even retired, they still pile up.

mark81150 on March 7, 2012 at 1:42 PM

BakerAllie on March 7, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Thanks for the link. AB didn’t think much of Mitt’s chances, mentioning the “template for Obamacare”. Oops.

Lightswitch on March 7, 2012 at 1:52 PM

I believe Mittens believe conservatives will get in line and vote for him ..
(where else can they go) mcCain thought the same way …. they stayed home … see how well that worked out for ol Juan right …. Mittens should learn
that lesson …. they DO have somewere else to go … home stocking food and ammo ….

conservative tarheel on March 7, 2012 at 1:57 PM

I don’t want Santorum on the ticket. I think he’s a drag on it, either way, due to his inability or unwillingness to stop stepping in Dem social-issue minefields. He will cost points in the general.

I believe that, due to the very, very widespread respect that Gingrich has,… if not at the top of the ticket, I think he’s a plus in the VP slot.

Rubio or West as VP, no, NO, NO!

They have negligible experience, are both too young, and do not have a sufficient resume to be CEO of America. Sorry, but that’s they way it is.

I like West, don’t know much about Rubio, except that he has never worked in the private sector, went straight from college to governing the people of Florida, and then straight to the U.S. Senate, and I hear his incessant use by some people as a race puppet, but NO. Putting them on the ticket breaches the same experience minimum that we all complained about with 0bama.

That leads us to Jindal:

GREAT leader. WILL be running for president someday.

HOWEVER – there is a huge, unresolved issue about his eligibility. The only legal claim he has to citizenship is as an “anchor baby.”
Neither parent was a citizen, and neither was in the citizenship pipeline when he was born in Baton Rouge, louisiana, after the parents came there from India for education under student visas

Follow me here, before the knee-jerk, Hot Air, “birther” bloviation/response:

To put him in as VP means that he’s being put in direct line to be president, should the president’s heart stop beating for more than a couple minutes.

THEN, there will HAVE to be an expedited Supreme-Court resolution of the “Natural-Born Citizen” cluase of the U.S. Constitution. And I mean in a week or so, with Jindal as acting president.

Because: if Jindal is to be allowed to be president, then the “anchor-baby” rule is being codified, by necessity, through the process of presidential succession.

If Jindal is NOT allowed to be president, then the very real question must be addressed as to whether 0bama was qualified to be president – and, following upon that – whether every single legislative and executive act he signed must be rendered null and void. Remember that U.S. statutory code on the date of his birth meant that his mother could confer citizenship ONLY if she had spent FIVE YEARS IN AMERICA AFTER AGE 14. (Link HERE.)

0bama’s mom was 17 when he was born, and she failed this test. His father was a British subject. So, the ONLY was 0bama can be eligible, if born in Hawaii, is as an ANCHOR BABY, unless his father was not actually not Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. I actually do believe there’s a good chance that he is not 0bama Jr.’s father, and that this is probably at the root of the whole birth-certificate controversy. I will discuss this specific eligibility problem for 0bama’s mother to the end of the Earth, with no conspiracy thoughts in my mind at all. There is no getting around it, because it is U.S. LAW.

A big mess? You betchur britches.

BUT – when I keep hearing people throwing Jindal’s name in there, they HAVE to realize that the problem of his eligibility can’t be slid around.

cane_loader on March 7, 2012 at 2:20 PM

A shorter way to put the Bobby Jindal eligibility question:

If Jindal is eligible, then so is 0bama.

If 0bama is eligible, then so is Jindal.

If Jindal isn’t eligible, then 0bama isn’t, either.

If 0bama isn’t eligible, then Jindal isn’t, either.

That is the legal long-and-short of it, in a nut shell.

cane_loader on March 7, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Here’s the caveat:

If 0bama birth-certificate was forged as to the birthplace, and if the forgery specifically covered up the fact that he wasn’t born in America, and if the father was not American, then he’s not eligible.

If any forgery was as to the identity of the father, NOT the birthplace, i.e., he WAS born in America, then the question would rest on whether the true father was American.

Born in America to American father and underage mother = CITIZEN.

Born in America to NON-American father and underage mother = CITIZEN only through an “anchor-baby” allowance (not yet properly adjudicated by the SCOTUS, and NOT spelled out in the Constitution) and/or a re-affirmation of 0bama’s citizenship at age 18. (Hence the importance of the Selective-Service card that Sheriff Arpaio’s inverstigation declared a forgery.)

cane_loader on March 7, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Just a follow up to my earlier comment about Democrats monkeying around in Ohio. The following is exit poll data taken from The Daily Caller.


“Santorum won a plurality of Democrats by 20 percentage points and a plurality of independents by 6 percentage points. Romney won a plurality of Republicans by 4 percentage points.”

So, despite Ron Pauls ability to attract democrats, the large majority of democrats to cross over voted for Rick Santorum. It’s possible that a few of these were anti-abortion Catholics, but it seems unlikely that this was a large part of that. The independents are also suspect here, as Romney usually does better with moderate voters than Santorum. Chances are these were D-leaning Obama supporters also trying to throw a monkey wrench into the election.

Among ONLY Republicans, Romney won a decisive victory of 4%. This is a compelling reason to close future primaries, had the race been ANY closer DEMOCRATS would’ve chosen our next nominee, not Republicans.

WolvenOne on March 7, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Because winning 6 of 10 races just isn’t good enough for someone people.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on March 7, 2012 at 3:13 PM

And the GOP continues its march toward nominating a completely gutless, uninspiring eunuch! Mittens RomneyCare!

Oh yeah baby! Who cares that the base won’t show up on election day? This man has INDIES SEALED I TELLSYA! SEALED!

Oh … erm, well – maybe the LIBERAL indies that is … the Conservative indies, not so much.

Thank you so much … Oh GOP Ayatollahs … for nominating an alternative DEMOCRATIC nominee to Barack H. Obama!

No thanks man – think I’ll vote for the REAL Democratic nominee!

LOL – GOP … WAY TO SUCK BOYS!

HondaV65 on March 7, 2012 at 3:20 PM

I know the management doesn’t favor the “birther” meme.

I hope that they see that when I discuss this, I use facts and legal discussion, and try to stay away from hyperbole. When a county sheriff’s investigation submits a legal finding that there is probable cause that the president’s supposed “birth certificate” that he submitted to the press/American people, and his Selective Service card are both forged, then I think I am not engaging in loose conspiracy talk. It seems fair to say that I am discuss the legal findings of public officials, which show that there is an open controversy about the identity of the most powerful man in America.

Anyone with a journalistic bone in his/her body doesn’t just let this go…. I have to discuss it, making earnest points.

Thank you, Ed and Allah, for your tolerance…..

cane_loader on March 7, 2012 at 3:26 PM

And the GOP continues its march toward nominating a completely gutless, uninspiring eunuch! Mittens RomneyCare!

Oh yeah baby! Who cares that the base won’t show up on election day? This man has INDIES SEALED I TELLSYA! SEALED!

Oh … erm, well – maybe the LIBERAL indies that is … the Conservative indies, not so much.

Thank you so much … Oh GOP Ayatollahs … for nominating an alternative DEMOCRATIC nominee to Barack H. Obama!

No thanks man – think I’ll vote for the REAL Democratic nominee!

LOL – GOP … WAY TO SUCK BOYS!

HondaV65 on March 7, 2012 at 3:20 PM

The base will show up and vote for Romney. They’re showing up and voting for him now, at least in larger numbers than they are for Santorum or Gingrich.

And why are you calling the GOP rank and file voters “Ayatollahs”? Just because your chosen candidate either didn’t participate in the primaries, didn’t win or is going to lose the election it’s no reason to be insulting and call people names. Temper tantrums are unbecoming, let’s all grow up and act our age.

alchemist19 on March 7, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Among ONLY Republicans, Romney won a decisive victory of 4%. This is a compelling reason to close future primaries, had the race been ANY closer DEMOCRATS would’ve chosen our next nominee, not Republicans.

WolvenOne on March 7, 2012 at 3:00 PM

I agree. Closed primaries should get a good look. I was thinking about this last week. But the problem is…. what do independents do when they can’t vote in the primaries? Where is their voice, as long as you have two-party hegemony?

I am going out of town just long enough to miss my state primary, but soon enough to be too late to request an absentee ballot. I’m going to have to go down to the registrar in the next day or two and vote in person, through early voting.

But the thing is… our state just in 2010 re-opened the primaries. In 2008, they were closed, and I was a registered independent. I didn’t have a voice in picking McCain.

This time, I will have a voice.

So I’m torn on this. How about this solution:

Close the Republican and Democrat primaries back up, but allow you to vote in them if you are not a member of the other major party…. i.e., a registered independent can vote in the Republican primary but NOT a registered Democrat. And independents would be allowed to vote in EITHER the GOP or Dem primary, but NOT BOTH. (And let all other minor parties in, same as independents, as well.)

I know this would take some work and some coordination. But to me, this looks like a way to allow independents who are disgusted with the major parties to still register a choice and influence the country’s path, since that choice is being forced down their throats by the two-party hegemony.

cane_loader on March 7, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Ugh… guess what? I just called my registrar’s office.

The presidential primary is the ONLY one still closed, even after the 2010 law change. So, because I’m registered Independent, I have no voice in picking the nominee, and no vote, other than bloviating all the Hot Gas I can.

This current system sucks and it is broken.

My state’s not getting to pick the nominee, anyway.

Other states get to do that because they’re small and cute and raise ethanol and deep-fry Twinkies.

We don’t count.

0bama can shut off our drilling but we don’t get to pick his opponent.

cane_loader on March 7, 2012 at 3:40 PM

cane_loader on March 7, 2012 at 3:34 PM

NC is that way now … I am a registered indie and can vote either as a R or a D ….
if you are a registered R only R for you … if you are a D only D ballot for you …
it works ….

conservative tarheel on March 7, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Jazz, you are trying to hold Romney to the same standards as winner take all primaries and enormous 50% of delegates awarded on Super Tuesday in years past. The RNC designed this primary specifically to take LONGER.

Why don’t you admit it?

scotash on March 7, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Yeah, he wins the Catholics and loses the evangelicals…..strange.:)

a capella on March 7, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Not strange at all. They are arguably the most intolerant and politically demanding faction of the GOP. Their concentration in early primaries once gave them inordinate clout. Now this clout has been diminished–and they are understandably furious. Other Republicans are finally given some say–and a lot of them are Catholics.

writeblock on March 7, 2012 at 4:58 PM

scotash on March 7, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Precisely. All of this expectations setting is based on a system that is radically different in the ways that you pointed out. I am so tired of all of these bogus assessments that have nothing to do with today’s rules.

MJBrutus on March 7, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Move love bombs from Romney (and MJBrutus, are you telling usthat Romney despises Jesus and anyone who worships him? You need to get the word out on that one.)

Portia46 on March 7, 2012 at 1:40 PM

No, I’m saying that the Jesus freaks hate Mitt.

MJBrutus on March 7, 2012 at 5:28 PM

It was not only a pathetically weak performance last night given Romney’s money, endorsment and organizational advantages.

It was also pathetic compared to 2008. One example: In 2008 Romney won North Dakota with a clear majority and by nearly 30 points over McCain.

Last night? A distant THIRD place….LOL

Norwegian on March 7, 2012 at 5:29 PM

It was not only a pathetically weak performance last night given Romney’s money, endorsment and organizational advantages.

It was also pathetic compared to 2008. One example: In 2008 Romney won North Dakota with a clear majority and by nearly 30 points over McCain.

Last night? A distant THIRD place….LOL

Norwegian on March 7, 2012 at 5:29 PM

What a ridiculously poor spin job that is. Let’s review. Santorum blew another double digit lead in a critical rust belt state that is tailor made for him. But Mitt blew it, huh?

Newt won his home state and did no better than 3rd just about every where else. And Mitt blew it, huh?

Mitt has now made it a certainty that neither Santorum nor Newt nor Paul will be able to get anywhere near the 1144 needed delegates to win. And Mitt blew it, huh?

Mitt picked up about 212 delegate, with the next closest getting about 75. And Mitt blew it, huh?

A candidate who has no chance of getting the 1144 delegates needs to leave now! That leaves only Mitt and it’s about time that Newt, Santo and Paul did the patriotic thing and leave Mitt to take the fight to PBHO.

MJBrutus on March 7, 2012 at 5:45 PM

If the anti Romney crowd would pick a candidate, they might win. It’s not Romney’s fault you people can’t come to a consensus.

rubberneck on March 7, 2012 at 6:14 PM

No, I’m saying that the Jesus freaks hate Mitt.

MJBrutus on March 7, 2012 at 5:28 PM

I don’t hate him, I just don’t think he can beat Obama.

BakerAllie on March 7, 2012 at 7:24 PM

All you conservative talking heads, Mitt-haters and so-called “non-establishment” conservatives – can’t you see you are playing right into the media’s hands? The media not only wants Obama re-elected, they want this race to go farther, bloodier and get nastier. As Santorum is showcased as the only one who can beat Romney, the left is using Santorum to scare women and independents. Just why do you think Obama seems to be looking better? It’s because we are looking even worse. Santorum and Newt have no chance to get the nomination and the media knows this, yet they are egging you folks on, which is damaging the GOP brand, I fear, beyond repair. And you folks are buying into it, lock, stock and barrel. Consider those completely against Romney as they went thru how many other candidates before settling now on Santorum? You had Trump, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Newt and then a slew of folks that weren’t even going to run and now the only one left over (besides Ron Paul) is Rick Santorum. If Rick Santorum is so great, why haven’t you supported him from the very beginning? Most Romney supporters have been with him since the start (why else has he polled as the frontrunner for so long prior to the primaries?) As he wins more primaries, it’s obvious he is gaining support little by little. Ask this of yourselves – are you willing to give Obama another 4 years just because you hate Romney that much?

BabysCatz on March 7, 2012 at 9:52 PM

BabysCatz on March 7, 2012 at 9:52 PM

Sorry, I like the primary process more than any one candidate. Funny thing about we pragmatists.

hawkdriver on March 8, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4