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

I’m trying to figure out just who the ever elusive “base” is supposed to be. … I’m not sure how those who would vow to vote against the Republican-nominated candidate could ever be considered the “base”.

whatcat on March 7, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Good point. The “base” is generally thought to be those who can be counted on to vote Republican.

Syzygy on March 7, 2012 at 9:39 AM

So, Paul seemed to be the fixer that puts Romney in the general. I am warning to Romney, after watching his very strong performance on Huckabee’s candidate forum, but am not yet sold – with one caveat:

Were Romney to pick Gingrich as the VP, I will go ahead and vote for Romney. I think a strong enough, legitimate enough, ticket to take out 0bama, and I think that Gingrich could really help Romney govern.

cane_loader on March 7, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Newt is a Big Government stooge (albeit a smart one), Santorum is a union buddy (not to mention a religious nut), and Romney is a limp-wristed poster boy for crony capitalism. So, if you disregard his patently insane foreign policy, Ron Paul is the only actual conservative in the race. He richly deserves his place at the convention, and I hope he has a heavy say in deciding who the next President hopeful will be (as long as it’s not Ron Paul himself).

Archivarix on March 7, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Let me guess, none of them will accept the blame either? It will be because of “The Establishment”.

Zaggs on March 7, 2012 at 9:26 AM

“blame”?

you really wanna tell us, after nuking all his opponents to the point he’s got damn little money left, running ads so dishonest and vicious, he’s alienated vast chucks of the conservative base, after allowing his shills to go around bashing Rick’s Catholic faith as too “EXTREME”… while labeling even the mention of his Mormonism as bigotry..

you really can’t understand why he turns off so many voters?

and of course.. it’s always somebody else’s fault,..

poor Mitt.. winning , but not making any new friends,.. and this is somehow.. all someone else’s fault.

mark81150 on March 7, 2012 at 9:41 AM

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/06/mcconnell-calls-for-resolution-authorizing-the-use-of-force-against-iran-video/

VERY BAD FOR THE GOP IN AN ELECTION YEAR.

This country will not support any move to do such a thing; and it’s incredibly stupid. When will the GOP figure out that all the talk of going to war translates in the minds of voters into “VOTE FOR OBAMA.”

God. This is just incredibly and breathtakingly STUPID.

mountainaires on March 7, 2012 at 9:41 AM

As for Romney, he and his team can put whatever spin they want on the results, but they can’t hide his continued inability to get a majority (as opposed to a plurality) of the vote

Neither can anyone else. SO I guess that means they all suck.
BacaDog on March 7, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Applying the logic to it’s own end, it would actually mean the other candidates “suck even worse” than Romney.

whatcat on March 7, 2012 at 9:42 AM

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/06/mcconnell-calls-for-resolution-authorizing-the-use-of-force-against-iran-video/

VERY BAD FOR THE GOP IN AN ELECTION YEAR.

This country will not support any move to do such a thing; and it’s incredibly stupid. When will the GOP figure out that all the talk of going to war translates in the minds of voters into “VOTE FOR OBAMA.”

God. This is just incredibly and breathtakingly STUPID.

mountainaires on March 7, 2012 at 9:41 AM

Why do I have a nasty feeling that McConnell is working for the Democrats? There is plenty of evidence to it.

Archivarix on March 7, 2012 at 9:45 AM

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.

The math doesn’t lie: THERE IS NO PATH TO THE NOMINATION FOR SANTORUM. Certainly not for Gingrich.

So, they may keep going for a while; but short of Mitt Romney dropping out, Santorum is wasting time and money. At some point, he’ll be forced to concede the facts. But not until he’s driven a wedge into this party, which won’t help the GOP fight Obama.

The numbers don’t lie: There is NO way Santorum can win the nomination.

mountainaires on March 7, 2012 at 9:45 AM

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.

This is a favorite tactic of Santorum supporters; to mention the percentages Romney reaps in the states he loses. It usually takes the form of “X% of the people of Y state voted against Romney.” This they do to show Romney’s supposed weakness but they always forget to mention Santorum’s take of the vote. So let’s do that now, just to be fair.

AK 29%, GA 20% ID 18%, MA 12%, VT 24%. He had a respectable 37% in OH and didn’t care enough to try in VA with 0%.

It should not escape your notice that while Romney lost 4 states (and came in 2nd in three of those) Santorum lost 6 states.

So, is this the reason we should support Santorum? Because Romney is doing so poorly?

rogaineguy on March 7, 2012 at 9:45 AM

This is a favorite tactic of Santorum supporters; to mention the percentages Romney reaps in the states he loses.

rogaineguy on March 7, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Exactly. Relative strength in swing states matters much more than states we already have nailed down.

The Count on March 7, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Good point. The “base” is generally thought to be those who can be counted on to vote Republican.

Syzygy on March 7, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Apparently you never heard that very pointed quote by Ron Reagan -”my party left me.” If you want a RINO party that accomodates, enables, compromises, or sits silent when they ought not,and is complicit with the radical left, than keep voting GOP.

Don L on March 7, 2012 at 9:47 AM

At what point are the GOP leaders (and I include the Rush Limbaugh’s, Sean Hannity’s, Sarah Palin’s, and other talking heads) going to say enough is enough, and tell Santorum and Newt that they have to consolidate because the primary is hurting the GOP?

Seriously. Mitt Romney is perceived as weak because short-sighted Santorum conservatives keep going out and voting for an unelectable candidate, and articles are published that say Romney is weak because he can only win by small margins. And the Rush Limbaugh’s keep going out and saying that non-sense and encouraging non-Romney candidates. So, because of that, Romney is perceived as weak, and that narrative begins to stick.

So, Santorum conservatives, when is enough enough? When is it time to stop trying to send some “message” and try to defeat Obama?

milcus on March 7, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Romney can win the delegate count but if he fails to inspire the base we get another four years of Obama.
Happy Nomad on March 7, 2012 at 8:59 AM
Because the base is going to vote for Obama? (Or stay home, which is essentially voting for Obama?)
Violina23 on March 7, 2012 at 9:19 AM

I’m trying to figure out just who the ever elusive “base” is supposed to be. To me, the Republican base consists of those who get out and vote for the person who they want to be the Republican nominee and form the plurality, if not the majority, of the party. And I’m not sure how those who would vow to vote against the Republican-nominated candidate could ever be considered the “base”.

whatcat on March 7, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Exactly. I think at this point in the game, when facing the reality of the media-supported Obama [making contraception into an election issue(!)], we need to put more of our effort towards debunking the BS to independents — rather than putting it all towards convincing this “base” about how genuinely conservative/religious our candidates are (or are not).

In other words, I think the number of independents who would be scared off by Santorum’s uber-religious/not-gay-friendly comments are SIGNFICANTLY more than the number of Republican “base” members who would sit out the general election or vote for Obama out of spite.

Romney wouldn’t have been my choice. But Anybody-but-Obama trumps Anybody-but-Romney for me. It’s sad, but true.

Violina23 on March 7, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Newt cant win and staying in the race makes him look ego centric its not about the party its about Newt. His speech last night was negative and whiny. Santorum also has no chance now but at least he can claim not only wins but of second places as well. I haven’t been for Romney at all but Im hoping the struggle he has had getting the nomination is sending him the message not to take the republican base for granted. For people that say they wont vote for Romney just look at whats going on with Israel. I would rather have Mitt than the pro muslim we have now. Think about 4 more years of Eric Holder at DOJ. Think about Supreme court lifetime appointments of justices that wont adhere to the constitution. We need to stop whining toughen up and defeat Obama. We can work on getting conservatives in down ticket races now and in two years and making the things that are important to us clear to Mitt. Its frustrating but its the hand we’re dealt.

ldbgcoleman on March 7, 2012 at 9:49 AM

If you want to spend all summer dragging this out and bleeding Romney’s resources dry instead of softening up Obama, thanks for nothing. As Breitbart said at CPAC, “you’re on the other side”.

The Count on March 7, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Exactly. This long, drawn-out process only helps one person, and it isn’t any of the GOP candidates. Anybody but Obama ought to be the focus, here.

changer1701 on March 7, 2012 at 9:50 AM

In other words, I think the number of independents who would be scared off by Santorum’s uber-religious/not-gay-friendly comments are SIGNFICANTLY more than the number of Republican “base” members who would sit out the general election or vote for Obama out of spite.

Romney wouldn’t have been my choice. But Anybody-but-Obama trumps Anybody-but-Romney for me. It’s sad, but true.

Violina23 on March 7, 2012 at 9:47 AM

I wasn’t not going after any particular candidate there, just noting that the “base” claim doesn’t make any sense if it is defined by as “a minority of people who vow to vote against the candidate their party has chosen”. It would make no sense no matter whom was nominated.

whatcat on March 7, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Exactly. Relative strength in swing states matters much more than states we already have nailed down.

The Count on March 7, 2012 at 9:46 AM

For Romney.

rogaineguy on March 7, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Paul Mirengoff and Hugh Hewitt weigh in:

It’s Romney.

Face reality. Romney brough the lunches for both of you and beat you over head with your own flashlight. The fight’s over. You lost.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/03/one-less-thing-for-romney-to-worry-about.php

mountainaires on March 7, 2012 at 9:51 AM

If they do, they deserve it. They went with mittens cause it was his turn and all the best players sat the game out.

DHChron on March 7, 2012 at 9:27 AM

The ‘best players’ are, by definition, those who play. The prominent Republicans to whom you refer chose to sit and watch instead, even though the country is on the precipice and desperately needs good people to put aside self-interest and get in the game. Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, and the rest stepped up, got out there, took a chance, put it on the line. Them I respect.

troyriser_gopftw on March 7, 2012 at 9:52 AM

“blame”?

you really wanna tell us, after nuking all his opponents to the point he’s got damn little money left, running ads so dishonest and vicious, he’s alienated vast chucks of the conservative base, after allowing his shills to go around bashing Rick’s Catholic faith as too “EXTREME”… while labeling even the mention of his Mormonism as bigotry..

you really can’t understand why he turns off so many voters?

and of course.. it’s always somebody else’s fault,..

poor Mitt.. winning , but not making any new friends,.. and this is somehow.. all someone else’s fault.

mark81150

SweaterVest fans like this are hilarious. No wonder he is so far behind. So running ads about Rick’s record is now “dishonest”? Wouldn’t that mean Rick’s record is itself “dishonest”?
Also its not Santorum’s “catholic faith” (which was totally absent earlier on), but his interpretation. Not to mention his utter hypocrisy when it comes to state rights which seems to dovetail into his “faith”. States can ban contraception or sodomy, but they cannot be allowed to allow gay marriage.
So yes your ilk always play the same game. “Hey lets elect this crap candidate to buck the establishment”. After said crap candidate loses, you blame the establishment.

Zaggs on March 7, 2012 at 9:52 AM

The math doesn’t lie: THERE IS NO PATH TO THE NOMINATION FOR SANTORUM. Certainly not for Gingrich.

So, they may keep going for a while; but short of Mitt Romney dropping out, Santorum is wasting time and money. At some point, he’ll be forced to concede the facts. But not until he’s driven a wedge into this party, which won’t help the GOP fight Obama.

The numbers don’t lie: There is NO way Santorum can win the nomination.

mountainaires on March 7, 2012 at 9:45 AM

actually it is mittens that has driven the wedge with his negative ads … he can not sell himself for what he has done or believes so he attempts to destroy his opponents ….

conservative tarheel on March 7, 2012 at 9:55 AM

mark81150 on March 7, 2012 at 9:41 AM

You summed it up nicely. The only thing I might change/add is that it isn’t even necessary to mention Romney’s religion to be called a bigot around here.

I don’t care who wins anymore. Either Santorum or Newt will win the conservative counties, and Mitt will win the liberal population centers.

Lightswitch on March 7, 2012 at 9:55 AM

I don’t care for any of these candidates but Romney is the one I truly dislike. His “I have nothing to do with them” Superpac has been nasty to his fellow Republicans. Mr Vanilla goes on record as saying Obama is a nice guy. Inspiring that Romney, real backbone.

red131 on March 7, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, and the rest stepped up, got out there, took a chance, put it on the line. Them I respect.

troyriser_gopftw on March 7, 2012 at 9:52 AM

haha :) good for you. I think they’re all second rate

As you are right about the “definition” – I’ll change my statement to the best options sat the game out. None of which changes my assertion: if the GOP gets thumped, they deserve it.

DHChron on March 7, 2012 at 9:57 AM

If you want to spend all summer dragging this out and bleeding Romney’s resources dry instead of softening up Obama, thanks for nothing. As Breitbart said at CPAC, “you’re on the other side”.

The Count on March 7, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Breitbart said he didn’t care who won the nomination, just that he’d support who ever did.. He would have supported any of them,..

sucks that you imply he was a Romney partisan, pretty low.

Talk about moving the bar, now it’s not enough to merely vote for him if he wins the nod, we all have to pack it in early, show enthusiasm we don’t have, or we’re enemy forces?

just be on your knees greatful we’ll show up in November..

because we will..

and you’re laying the mods pre-emptive excuse out if he looses to Obama.. it’s (points wavering finger) your fault… if only you had dumped your own opinions and just obeyed like we demanded,.. we’d a won..

look, if we show up and Mitt looses anyway, make any excuse you want, he’ll just be another squish the mods drooled over who lacked the stones to win… you pushed him, you own him, wether he wins or not..

he wins I’ll buy you a beer.. but you don’t get to ride that hobby horse if he looses, you’ll own that as much as if he won.

mark81150 on March 7, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Status of the horse race:

Romney is clearly in front of the pack.

Santorum earned the right to stick around for a while longer.

Too many 4th place finishes for Newt. Put a fork in him…he’s done.

Paul is proving a point and is gonna stick around no matter.

Deafdog on March 7, 2012 at 9:59 AM

One way Santorum becomes nominee….Newt drops out, endorses Santorum AND pledges his delegatesto him

jp on March 7, 2012 at 10:02 AM

troyriser_gopftw on March 7, 2012 at 10:03 AM

I’m not sure he’ll attack Obama with such relish, because of his own statements. No Mass. Moderate likes being called a racist.

DHChron on March 7, 2012 at 10:03 AM

actually it is mittens that has driven the wedge with his negative ads … he can not sell himself for what he has done or believes so he attempts to destroy his opponents ….

conservative tarheel on March 7, 2012 at 9:55 AM

I want a candidate willing to get his hands bloody in a political fight. A fruit basket and flowers won’t beat the Chicago Machine.

troyriser_gopftw on March 7, 2012 at 10:03 AM

SweaterVest fans like this are hilarious. No wonder he is so far behind. So running ads about Rick’s record is now “dishonest”? Wouldn’t that mean Rick’s record is itself “dishonest”?
Also its not Santorum’s “catholic faith” (which was totally absent earlier on), but his interpretation. Not to mention his utter hypocrisy when it comes to state rights which seems to dovetail into his “faith”. States can ban contraception or sodomy, but they cannot be allowed to allow gay marriage.
So yes your ilk always play the same game. “Hey lets elect this crap candidate to buck the establishment”. After said crap candidate loses, you blame the establishment.

Zaggs on March 7, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Purely anecdotal, but I’m talking to my very southern Baptist neighbor yesterday and she mentions that she’s going to vote Santorum in our upcoming election because it makes her mad that Romney is spending more money than anyone else and “even though he’s a Catholic” (I laughed) she thinks he has a nice family. I asked her, “Do you really think he can win against Obama?” and she said no, Romney will probably be the nominee, and she thinks he can win, but she wants “her” vote to go to Santorum right now.

I don’t get that logic. at all. How many more are there out there doing the same?

BettyRuth on March 7, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Night Owl,

The title is Born Fighting. The subtitle is something along the lines of…How the Scots Irish Shaped America. You should be able to find it at Amazon.

If you read it let me know what you think.

flyfisher on March 7, 2012 at 10:05 AM

It’s over. No hope. Romney will be the nominee and Obama will be the next President. I listened to all three speeches. Newt, even when it’s one of his worst speeches, is still erudite and interesting and inspiring. Brilliant man. Santorum is an honorable man. Sincere. Totally believable and without malice.

Romney and his teleprompter won’t be setting anyone’s hair on fire.

Portia46 on March 7, 2012 at 10:06 AM

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.

Interesting how Ohio, since Romney won it, is suddenly no more significant than say, Vermont. Wasn’t he trailing Santorum by double digits last week? Wasn’t Romney supposed to lose in Ohio? Up until they called it for Romney last night Ohio was a big deal. And now…not? Interesting. And convenient, huh?

cicerone on March 7, 2012 at 10:07 AM

One way Santorum becomes nominee….Newt drops out, endorses Santorum AND pledges his delegatesto him

jp on March 7, 2012 at 10:02 AM

I like Newt for a lot of reasons, but his ego is bigger than his pie hole, so I don’t see him doing this. Your scenario would liven things up though, so one can hope.

Lightswitch on March 7, 2012 at 10:09 AM

I want a candidate willing to get his hands bloody in a political fight. A fruit basket and flowers won’t beat the Chicago Machine.

troyriser_gopftw on March 7, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Then why does Romney keep sending a fruit basket and flowers to the Chicago machine? If he is the inevitable candidate, and you want us all to rally behind him, when is he going to act like someone who opposes, well, anything that Obama does?

oldroy on March 7, 2012 at 10:09 AM

As you are right about the “definition” – I’ll change my statement to the best options sat the game out. None of which changes my assertion: if the GOP gets thumped, they deserve it.

DHChron on March 7, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Troll talk.

cicerone on March 7, 2012 at 10:10 AM

want a candidate willing to get his hands bloody in a political fight. A fruit basket and flowers won’t beat the Chicago Machine.

troyriser_gopftw on March 7, 2012 at 10:03 AM

But Romney says Obama is a “nice” man; just in over his head. He’s not going to say any “outrageous” things about Obama–like Obama is purposely destroying our economy and using the overload the system tactic to implode our republic. Romney says Santorum and Gingrich and Perry are the anti-Christs.

I’m pretty sure getting your hands bloody by murdering your own troops is not a winning strategy.

Portia46 on March 7, 2012 at 10:13 AM

I think it’s funny how Newt and Rick think they can still win. Forget math. Forget reality. I will enjoy watching them slowly fade away.

hanzblinx on March 7, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Romney is beating all those guys in the delegate count… combined. I wish they’d just pack it in already so we can move on to Barack Obama’s retirement party. I’m tired of looking at ‘em already, and at this point I can hardly bear to listen to Gingrich or Santorum speak. If we lose in November, after EVERYTHING Obama has done, I think the blame will fall squarely on those two and their enormous egos. It’s time for these people to put their personal ambitions aside and think about the future of this country.

Murf76 on March 7, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Interesting how Ohio, since Romney won it, is suddenly no more significant than say, Vermont. Wasn’t he trailing Santorum by double digits last week? Wasn’t Romney supposed to lose in Ohio? Up until they called it for Romney last night Ohio was a big deal. And now…not? Interesting. And convenient, huh?

cicerone on March 7, 2012 at 10:07 AM

They keep moving the goalposts so they can continue the ‘can’t seal the deal’ narrative.

Then why does Romney keep sending a fruit basket and flowers to the Chicago machine? If he is the inevitable candidate, and you want us all to rally behind him, when is he going to act like someone who opposes, well, anything that Obama does?

oldroy on March 7, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Do you bother to listen to him in the debates, or on the stump? He goes after Obama all the time.

changer1701 on March 7, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Anyone saying the math is impossible to overcome is lying…

There are 8 winner take all primaries left with a total of 400 delegates in those state…

Since Mittens can’t beat Santorum 1 on 1 most of those will go to Santorum…

MGardner on March 7, 2012 at 10:16 AM

“The base” will vote for whoever the Republican nominee is. That’s why they’re the base. Romney will get that base, and in addition, he will get the votes of Independents for whom the economy and jobs are the number one issue. I also think he will get quite a few Democrats to vote for him.

Paddington on March 7, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Then why does Romney keep sending a fruit basket and flowers to the Chicago machine? If he is the inevitable candidate, and you want us all to rally behind him, when is he going to act like someone who opposes, well, anything that Obama does?

oldroy on March 7, 2012 at 10:09 AM

That’s absurd. He has been going after ObaMao all along. But I guess it’s easy to miss that when you refuse to pay attention and lack the intellectual honesty to acknowledge basic reality.

cicerone on March 7, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Where are all of the Paulestinians this morning? Why no talk of taking their votes and going home? Is it because Romney is leading and Not Santorum or Newt?

oldroy on March 7, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Interesting how Ohio, since Romney won it, is suddenly no more significant than say, Vermont. Wasn’t he trailing Santorum by double digits last week? Wasn’t Romney supposed to lose in Ohio? Up until they called it for Romney last night Ohio was a big deal. And now…not? Interesting. And convenient, huh?

cicerone on March 7, 2012 at 10:07 AM

I wish HA had remained noncommital and not endorsed a primary candidate. The convolutions they’re going through to spin Santorum’s Ohio loss as a net positive is downright painful to watch.

troyriser_gopftw on March 7, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Mitt’s only way to break out of his rut is to select a high-energy VP pick, coopt Santorum or something else radical. Otherwise, this will be an ABO election and Romney will be lucky to pull it out with a narrow mandate.

ted c on March 7, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Face reality. Romney brough the lunches for both of you and beat you over head with your own flashlight. The fight’s over. You lost.

mountainaires on March 7, 2012 at 9:51 AM

There it is.

Go RBNY on March 7, 2012 at 10:19 AM

So yes your ilk always play the same game. “Hey lets elect this crap candidate to buck the establishment”. After said crap candidate loses, you blame the establishment.

Zaggs on March 7, 2012 at 9:52 AM

I’ll tell ya what stumpy, when I join an “ilks” club, I’ll send you a beanie hat.. to go with your bigoted stick up yer ass club bonnet.

My “ilk”.. is disgusted with the sewer Romeny’s superpac has created, and no, they didn’t just show Rick’s “record” they put as wild eyed a spin on it as possible.Romney runs like a democrat does, his campaign and supporters can’t just disagree and state why..

you absolutely have to paint a good man as evil, because character assaination is all you got when your candidate can’t even summon the guts to say anything even mildly negative about Obama.

“sweatervest”?

really?

is this where I mention “magic underwear” and baptizing dead people?

I’m sick of your “ilk”… so stupidly trashing everyone else, to scramble to the top of this shitpile.. then bitching it wasn’t you… no no, it was that “crazy” sweatervest,.. and Newt, yeah, that’s it.. it was THEM… that did it..

Don’t lecture me stumpy, not my first rodeo, your boy is neck deep in sh*t, and you have the gall to say it was just being truthful? Just be glad we’ll vote in November, your people skills suck.

mark81150 on March 7, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Romney says Santorum and Gingrich and Perry are the anti-Christs.

I’m pretty sure getting your hands bloody by murdering your own troops is not a winning strategy.

Portia46 on March 7, 2012 at 10:13 AM

What else are the voices in your head telling you? Maybe you need to up the dosage on your meds.

cicerone on March 7, 2012 at 10:21 AM

They keep moving the goalposts so they can continue the ‘can’t seal the deal’ narrative.

changer1701 on March 7, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Basically. It seems the ABR’s are even beginning to tire of it though.

Go RBNY on March 7, 2012 at 10:21 AM

The math doesn’t lie: THERE IS NO PATH TO THE NOMINATION FOR SANTORUM. Certainly not for Gingrich.

So, they may keep going for a while; but short of Mitt Romney dropping out, Santorum is wasting time and money. At some point, he’ll be forced to concede the facts. But not until he’s driven a wedge into this party, which won’t help the GOP fight Obama.

The numbers don’t lie: There is NO way Santorum can win the nomination.

mountainaires on March 7, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Hopefully, donors will recognize that fact, and put a mercy-killing to this never-ending, pitifully boring primary.

Murf76 on March 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM

I wish HA had remained noncommital and not endorsed a primary candidate. The convolutions they’re going through to spin Santorum’s Ohio loss as a net positive is downright painful to watch.

troyriser_gopftw on March 7, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Yes, it is sad. But the maturation process for the chronically juvenile is often difficult to watch. But it will all be worth it when they finally grow up and stick to what’s real.

cicerone on March 7, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Honestly, I no longer care who the GOP nominee is. I don’t care if it is Romney or Newt or Santorum, I don’t care because I’m going to vote R because I can’t take another 4 years of O in the White House.

NerwenAldarion on March 7, 2012 at 10:27 AM

They keep moving the goalposts so they can continue the ‘can’t seal the deal’ narrative.

changer1701 on March 7, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Basically. It seems the ABR’s are even beginning to tire of it though.

Go RBNY on March 7, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Let’s hope so.

cicerone on March 7, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Basically. It seems the ABR’s are even beginning to tire of it though.

Go RBNY on March 7, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Let’s hope. Santy and Newt have no realistic shot at the nomination, and dragging this out is only aiding Obama.

changer1701 on March 7, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Obama loses Dem primary in 15 Oklahoma counties

(AP) – 10 hours ago

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — President Barack Obama collected the most votes in the Oklahoma Democratic primary, but lost in 15 counties.

With 98 percent of precincts reporting Tuesday, Obama won 57 percent of the vote. Four other candidates combined for 43 percent of the vote, including anti-abortion activist and Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry who received 18 percent of the vote.

ted c on March 7, 2012 at 10:33 AM

I wish HA had remained noncommital and not endorsed a primary candidate. The convolutions they’re going through to spin Santorum’s Ohio loss as a net positive is downright painful to watch.
troyriser_gopftw on March 7, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Yes, it is sad. But the maturation process for the chronically juvenile is often difficult to watch. But it will all be worth it when they finally grow up and stick to what’s real.
cicerone on March 7, 2012 at 10:26 AM

I think, especially on a site with multiple bloggers, the “endorsements” are counter-productive. That’s even aside from such endorsements meaning very little, if anything, other than a display of vanity. Better to just make a confessional transparency personal caveat saying “Fair disclosure, I’m partial to ——”.

On the subject of the odd Ohio spin, this is interesting:
Romney Scores Big Win; Press Fails to Notice

whatcat on March 7, 2012 at 10:36 AM

That’s absurd. He has been going after ObaMao all along. But I guess it’s easy to miss that when you refuse to pay attention and lack the intellectual honesty to acknowledge basic reality.

cicerone on March 7, 2012 at 10:17 AM

I see that “absurd” and up it by an “absurdly absurd”. Ironically you are calling others “intellectually dishonest”, claiming that Mitt has gone after Obama in any way. You can probably point to a speech here or there when he mentions Obama, but show me where he vehemently disagrees with Obama policy and will change those policies, and how he will do it. I’m most interested in repealing and not replacing Rombama-Care. These are the things that the nominee needs to be doing. If it’s a foregone conclusion, then why can’t he muster up a little courage on the issues?

This has been the problem with Mitt and his supporters all along. Dream a little dream that he is a good candidate, and then try to force your view on others instead of discussing the problems that the base has with him. And frankly, many of his supporters are just about as abrasive as the Paulenstinians. That doesn’t win him any support.

Every single thing said about Santorum not being able to close the deal and not having a path to the nomination is true. But it doesn’t make Mitt any better of a candidate than he was a couple of months ago.

The problem is that he is mismatched with the base that you want to follow him. (Yes, true of almost everyone that stuck in the race this time.) Ideologically and policy-wise he is closer to the Democrat party than he is the Republican party.

oldroy on March 7, 2012 at 10:36 AM

So Santorum lost 7 out of 10 contests on Super Tuesday (including Ohio) but he’s still viable?

Newt only won his home state, losing 9 out 10 contests, and coming 3rd or 4th place in all, but he’s still viable.

What would you say if Romney had performed like these two clowns had? I’d say stick a fork in him, he’s done.

Romney is going to be the nominee, the delegate count is too great, the absolute “best” case scenario for the NotRomneys would be a VP slot. I’d much rather a Rubio or McDonnell on the ticket than Santorum or Newt, not to mention the bloody battle to the Convention only helps a weak Obama.

BradTank on March 7, 2012 at 10:36 AM

MGardner on March 7, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Winner take all, are you sure? Or is it, you have to get more than 50% of the vote and/or your opponents all have to have under 15%? Not so sure they are all winner take all. California and New York equal almost 400 together and there is no way Santorum is winning in those states. That puts Romney at needing approximately 300 delegates and Santorum steel need 600 delegates (even handing him all of the 400 delegates coming up).

No path to win for either Newt or Santorum. None.

uhangtight on March 7, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Interesting how Ohio, since Romney won it, is suddenly no more significant than say, Vermont. Wasn’t he trailing Santorum by double digits last week? Wasn’t Romney supposed to lose in Ohio? Up until they called it for Romney last night Ohio was a big deal. And now…not? Interesting. And convenient, huh?

cicerone on March 7, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Um no, Romney was leading by double digits for weeks before Santorum took the lead. Romney’s squeaker is a big deal but not in the way you think. He greatly outspent Santorum in advertising, had the entire GOP establishment working on his side and STILL won by just 1% in a state that he once led by double digits.

fight like a girl on March 7, 2012 at 10:36 AM

I’m trying to figure out just who the ever elusive “base” is supposed to be. … I’m not sure how those who would vow to vote against the Republican-nominated candidate could ever be considered the “base”.

whatcat on March 7, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Good point. The “base” is generally thought to be those who can be counted on to vote Republican.

Syzygy on March 7, 2012 at 9:39 AM

I think it depends on the context. In many cases it refers to activists in the party who can be counted on to do the heavy lifting of campaigning – organizing, phone banking, GOTV, etc. – and not those who simply show up and vote.

Sure, most of them will probably vote for Romney in November, but that won’t be enough. Without their energy, enthusiasm, and boots on the ground, it will be very hard to Romney to eke out a win.

Then again, perhaps Romney will be able to count on those critical moderate and independent voters to do the heavy lifting and generate the requisite level of excitement between now and November 6.

Just Sayin on March 7, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Bring a flashlight…pack a lunch.

This is good advice here. It is time to talk openly about what went wrong in November 2010. Some Tea Party groups let us down running candidates for Senate and then not supporting them or having other republicans undermining them. Discuss. There are a lot of sides to that story.

Here are some campaigns to discuss: Sharon Angle, Christine O’Donnell, Murkowski in Alaska, ran even though she didn’t win, Carl Paladino in NY when they could have had a Lazio or a Guiliani. (Herman Cain was our Carl Paladino.)

If you do not confront your mistakes, and talk with each other about how you will change this time. How will you cooperate with each other so your candidate can win?

Winning the primary isn’t everything, if you are supporting a candidate and you do not consider yourself a part of the establishment, how will you work with the establishment to get your candidate elected?

It appeared to outsiders anyway, that once the Beltway folks declared Christine O’Donnell dead on arrival they spoiled her chances. I feel that some are doing that to Mitt right now, and then saying, see we spoiled him, now he can’t win! It’s their fault but they are saying it as if they didn’t do it. They wanted someone else, and used the power of the punditry to pretend they were objective.

Sharon Angel also had problems within the Republican party establishment, besides being undermined by democrats, someone could supply the details here, because I don’t get enough info on NV where I am.

You see, if you are working 10-20 hours per week on a primary campaign, you don’t just get to hand off your candidate to the Establishment without bringing supporters that are willing to work 20-40 hours a week after work to make the calls and give the proper testimony. While personally, I think the party should support you if you win their primary, given that you are really a republican candidate, if you deliver a more challenging candidate in your primary, that has to come with commitment to others in the party that your people intend to show up, bring more cash than it takes to elect a conventional candidate, and work to win.

Someone needs to demonstrate that Gingrich or Santorum has organization and cash to pull the thing off, you can’t really expect Mitt Romney to hand over his money to run your campaign, hand over his organization intact and pay their salaries for you. I don’t see Santorum or Gingrich making the proper effort to do this, relying on the sugar daddy model/PAC advertising. Recently the candidates have taken to showing their jealousy for Mitt’s campaign funding (not the PAC) and say things like “with Mitt’s money,” but he is earning it in donations to his campaign the proper way. And for that matter, so is the PAC. They sneer as if they are jealous of his personal success and fortune, and play the class warfare tune even though his organization fundraised better. Republicans should not talk that way.

What are your plans, you guys? are you in it for the Long Haul?

Fleuries on March 7, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Rick Santorum pulled out some wins people didn’t expect in Tennessee, Oklahoma and North Dakota

Uh, everybody expected Santorum to win Tennessee and Oklahoma. And lots of people expected him to win Ohio.

EddieC on March 7, 2012 at 10:37 AM

I shudder when I think of Romney trying to win against Obama in November. I’ve never been convinced that Romney is anything but a Massachusetts Liberal. I’m not the only one either, see the article Mitt Romney, The Unconvincing Convert .

I’ll vote ABO in the general election, but I think it’s time to form a conservative third party.

Gladtobehere on March 7, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Anyone saying the math is impossible to overcome is lying…

There are 8 winner take all primaries left with a total of 400 delegates in those state…

Since Mittens can’t beat Santorum 1 on 1 most of those will go to Santorum…

MGardner on March 7, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Two of those 8 are Utah (40 delegates) and NJ (50 delegates), both of which Romney will win easily. In fact, Romney is probably the favorite in all the remaining winner take all states except Wisconsin.

Jon0815 on March 7, 2012 at 10:38 AM

I’ll tell ya what stumpy, when I join an “ilks” club, I’ll send you a beanie hat.. to go with your bigoted stick up yer ass club bonnet.

My “ilk”.. is disgusted with the sewer Romeny’s superpac has created, and no, they didn’t just show Rick’s “record” they put as wild eyed a spin on it as possible.Romney runs like a democrat does, his campaign and supporters can’t just disagree and state why..

you absolutely have to paint a good man as evil, because character assaination is all you got when your candidate can’t even summon the guts to say anything even mildly negative about Obama.

“sweatervest”?

really?

is this where I mention “magic underwear” and baptizing dead people?

I’m sick of your “ilk”… so stupidly trashing everyone else, to scramble to the top of this shitpile.. then bitching it wasn’t you… no no, it was that “crazy” sweatervest,.. and Newt, yeah, that’s it.. it was THEM… that did it..

Don’t lecture me stumpy, not my first rodeo, your boy is neck deep in sh*t, and you have the gall to say it was just being truthful? Just be glad we’ll vote in November, your people skills suck.

mark81150 on March 7, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Awesome.

Lightswitch on March 7, 2012 at 10:39 AM

The math doesn’t lie: THERE IS NO PATH TO THE NOMINATION FOR SANTORUM. Certainly not for Gingrich.

So, they may keep going for a while; but short of Mitt Romney dropping out, Santorum is wasting time and money. At some point, he’ll be forced to concede the facts. But not until he’s driven a wedge into this party, which won’t help the GOP fight Obama.

The numbers don’t lie: There is NO way Santorum can win the nomination.

mountainaires on March 7, 2012 at 9:45 AM

You are correct sir! I recall a certain candidate four years ago that was in the same situation. He selflessly ended his candidacy (to the shock and disappointment of the CPAC crowd) and pledged his support, time, and money to help the nominee and other republicans.

Santy could learn a thing or two from the guy he endorsed in 2008.

sidemeat on March 7, 2012 at 10:39 AM

I’m trying to figure out just who the ever elusive “base” is supposed to be. To me, the Republican base consists of those who get out and vote for the person who they want to be the Republican nominee and form the plurality, if not the majority, of the party. And I’m not sure how those who would vow to vote against the Republican-nominated candidate could ever be considered the “base”.

whatcat on March 7, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Let me introduce myelf. The first election I participated in was 1964. Subsequently I worked for a man who used to be considered a Republican icon (until Mitt Romney’s people informed us that we were not allowed Republican heros, even dead ones). I worked in the front lines for the minority party through Vietnam, Watergate, Jimmy Carter. I went against conventional wisdom and joined the landslide that gave us Ronald Reagan, but retained a great respect for George HW Bush. Most recently, I joined other outraged and scared citizens at town hall meetings and at the US Capitol to try and stop the juggernaut that was about to destroy our republic and surrender liberty to unelected bureaucrats who will hold the power of life and death.

BTW, I have a dear friend who was a financial and enthusiastic supporter of B. Obama. She is one of God’s loveliest people, and a few weeks ago she actually asked me who I was supporting. I got the impression she really is paying attention to the rapid deterioration of our economy. Her only negative comment about our candidates was about Romney. “There’s something about him I cannot like. Just a gut instinct.” And her gut instincts are amazingly accurate. Anyway, I don’t think we’ll get her to cross over to the R column. And Romney doesn’t like us. A rock and a hard place, indeed.

Is it difficult to learn to shoot with arthritis?

Portia46 on March 7, 2012 at 10:39 AM

It’s over. No hope. Romney will be the nominee and Obama will be the next President. I listened to all three speeches. Newt, even when it’s one of his worst speeches, is still erudite and interesting and inspiring. Brilliant man. Santorum is an honorable man. Sincere. Totally believable and without malice.

Romney and his teleprompter won’t be setting anyone’s hair on fire.

Portia46 on March 7, 2012 at 10:06 AM

This.

I won’t vote for Romney, and I have resigned myself to Obama winning re-election. The GOP blew it this cycle. Big Time.

Norwegian on March 7, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Two of those 8 are Utah (40 delegates) and NJ (50 delegates), both of which Romney will win easily. In fact, Romney is probably the favorite in all the remaining winner take all states except Wisconsin.

Jon0815 on March 7, 2012 at 10:38 AM

The first non-delusional comment I have seen on hotair. Thanks for telling the truth. 7 of 8 winner take all states favor Romney. Including California. And for those who do not know, Texas is proportional this year. Look it up.

hanzblinx on March 7, 2012 at 10:46 AM

I won’t vote for Romney, and I have resigned myself to Obama winning re-election.

Norwegian on March 7, 2012 at 10:45 AM

You have to be a US citizen to vote. But thanks for sharing your feelings about Obama’s re-election. Daily Kos is that way —->

hanzblinx on March 7, 2012 at 10:48 AM

After 01 APR all the contests are winner-take-all.

Romney’s path require both CA and NY: take those and its a lock.

Santorum and Gingrich can’t afford to have a robust presence in both States and they will divide up based on personality…

Newt will head west to CA and start media baiting on the premise that when you’re eating up free media time you don’t need that many ads. CA is suited to his cantankerous inner disposition and sunny outer disposition, and he loves upbraiding the media. If he works with some of the various groups, like the anti-gay marriage groups or the gun rights groups, he will be hitting a CA nerve that will require the media to respond.

Santorum will see neighboring NY and the Hillary Country of upstate as the natural starting place to stage an upset and may even head to some suburbs on Long Island to address the concerns of those working near the behemoth NYC. Remember the Weiner loss and that NYC may no longer be a monobloc and could offer some fertile ground, as well. Santorum doesn’t have the money for an air game, can’t get media recognition for it, but has a very good ground game.

If one or both NY and CA do not go Romney’s way then it is TX as the last, big jackpot. The strategy is simple: blanket the LA to SF corridor along with its suburbs and do his best not to get sucked into a media metalstorm. Easier said than done when the guy raising the storm is Newt Gingrich, and you cannot appear weak-kneed compared to Newt. In NY it is a simple strategy of blanket the NYC to Albany corridor, blanket Long Island with ads and ignore a Santorum ground game unless he starts having break-out districts in the NYC to Albany corridor.

Mitt cannot afford to be running a candidacy that leaves any opponent within the margins of a TX win. To do that requires both NY and CA. Going the path of trying to get the smaller States becomes difficult once the big ones loom.

By MAY this should be largely figured out.

And if either Newt or Santorum both decide to go all-in for either NY or CA, then it is Romney as he will win a three-way contested race in either of those States and take the other by default. And it doesn’t particularly matter what order these States go in, either, as the strategy remains the same for each of them.

ajacksonian on March 7, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Santorum is the only one who has an argument for staying in the race since he actually won some states and made Ohio close. Gingirch could not even win his home state with 50% of the vote, time for him to go. And the whiny victory speech was lame.

Blue Collar Todd on March 7, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Two of those 8 are Utah (40 delegates) and NJ (50 delegates), both of which Romney will win easily. In fact, Romney is probably the favorite in all the remaining winner take all states except Wisconsin.

One on one Romney will lose, look at Missouri, he lost by 30 points one on one…

If Gingrich drops out in the next two weeks Santorum will be the nominee…

MGardner on March 7, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Do you bother to listen to him in the debates, or on the stump? He goes after Obama all the time.

changer1701 on March 7, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Well now, there you go challenging the True Con narrative, changer. You’re supposed to just acknowledge that Romney never attacks Obama, and in fact does nothing but write him flowerly love letters, scented with fragrant perfume. You’re supposed to ignore that Romney has constantly criticized and challenged Obama, again and again and again, despite the well-documented evidence of him doing so. Because we’re supposed to believe he “doesn’t fight” or something (unless it’s to attack a conservative).

Vyce on March 7, 2012 at 10:51 AM

The math doesn’t lie: THERE IS NO PATH TO THE NOMINATION FOR SANTORUM. Certainly not for Gingrich.

So, they may keep going for a while; but short of Mitt Romney dropping out, Santorum is wasting time and money. At some point, he’ll be forced to concede the facts. But not until he’s driven a wedge into this party, which won’t help the GOP fight Obama.

The numbers don’t lie: There is NO way Santorum can win the nomination.

Let me remind some of the bright lights around here about history…until the 1950′s, and even after that, very few candidates went to the convention with enough delegates to win the nomination. Candidates took their delegates to the convention and used their voting block as leverage for any number of things…planks in the platform, negotiated face time in front of the convention to make their points, promises from nominee about appointments to key positions in administration, etc. you get the point. Just because you may have no apparent “path to the nomination” doesn’t mean there is no value in continuing, particularly if you represent a particular point of view that has both support and importance. Both Santorum and Gingrich represent, in their own ways, that point of view. I don’t think this means a brokered convention but what it may mean is that if Romney is going to get the nominmiation he’ll need to make some concessions to his challengers…at this point the value of supporting either Santorum or Gingrich is to stiffen Mittens spine.

ironmarshal on March 7, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Newt’s speech post his Georgia win was amazing. He is definitely the man to be President!

It was hard hitting against Obama, knowledgeable, promoted his platform, plus it was delightfully witty!

Newt reminds me of Churchill with his intelligence, strength, tenacity, and rapier wit!

http://www.cjunk.blogspot.com/2012/03/newt-onian_07.html

Sparky5253 on March 7, 2012 at 10:51 AM

I can’t remember a speech as boring as Santorum’s was last night. What a plodding, laborious, monotonic repetition of cliches. “We need, the America, that’s for, freedom, not the, federal government. There are issues that, we must lead, Obamacare.”

Romney’s speeches are pretty uninspiring, but Santorum’s don’t even register.

EddieC on March 7, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Here is another example of what I am talking about.

Virginia, the home of the disgruntled voter. Blaming everyone but themselves for a ballot with only two candidates on it.

Don’t blame others for exceptions to the rule you couldn’t get this time. You had to change the rules before other people succeeded at following them.

It is plain to me, that Tea Party folks, or Newt Supporters or Santorum…and even Perry and Bachman supporters…nice people all,

PRESUMED…someone else would put your candidate on the ballot for you. Did you give your local campaign a donation to help them out? Did you stand in front of the super market and count 300 names.

That is lazy. You can’t face it so you blame Romney, you have a tantrum and vote for Ron Paul. You blame your Governor, who is a good guy, a lot of states wish they had such a good guy. You eat your own. If you were outsmarted, why was that?

I would recommend a group trip to the therapist. Yup it is incredible that you did not do your part to get the extra names for the ballot, ask yourself: Is it MY fault? my most grievous fault.

Fleuries on March 7, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Newt is the amalgam of Churchill, Reagan, and Thatcher.

Romney can’t even begin to come close!

Sparky5253 on March 7, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Romney says Santorum and Gingrich and Perry are the anti-Christs.

I’m pretty sure getting your hands bloody by murdering your own troops is not a winning strategy.

Portia46 on March 7, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Party primaries have always been a variation of Thunderdome, Portia. Always. Candidates fight each other until a winner emerges. It isn’t pretty but that’s how it’s done. That neither Santorum nor Gingrich have the resources to attack Romney as well or as much as Romney’s attacked them is no reflection on Romney. How Gingrich and Santorum respond to those attacks, however, can either reduce or magnify the impact.

A savvy political operator knows the primary target audience of a negative attack ad isn’t the voter. Voters are the secondary audience. Negative ads are primarily aimed at the opponent and are engineered to provoke a reaction. Both Gingrich and Santorum have whined publicly about how mean and unfair these attacks are, and in both instances their responses hurt them more in the polls than the negativity of the content. Had they played it more presidential and let Romney’s attacks roll off their shoulders, the bounce-back from using such ineffectual tactics would’ve hurt Romney like a kind of media ju-jitsu.

troyriser_gopftw on March 7, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Let me introduce myelf.
Portia46 on March 7, 2012 at 10:39 AM

That was all well and good, Portia, but it really didn’t address my ponderings.

And your mention of your Obama-supporting friend underscores my ruminations, in a way; being that she voted against the Republican candidate she has as much claim to being part of the (Republican) “base” as do those would claim to be the “base” but would vow to follow her lead in voting against the Republican candidate. My thinking is that if the term “base” is to have any meaning at all, it would be those who can be counted on to vote for any given party’s candidate.

whatcat on March 7, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Last night had to be pretty much of a disappointment no matter who you happen to support.

Actually, I happen to know that Romney supporters (you know, the people who actually care about defeating Obama) are VERY thrilled with the results yeterday.

Anyway, Rick Santorum supporters have sunk to a new low in attacking Romney. Their new robocall encourages voters to “Stop Homosexuality” by voting against Mitt Romney.

They are using a nasty, anti-gay robocall to try to hurt Romney.

AUDIO: Gay-Hating Robocall from Santorum Allies Attacking Mitt Romney

I’m not at all surprised that Rick Santorum would sink to this level. After all, consider some of the things that Santorum himself has said:

“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.”

bluegill on March 7, 2012 at 10:55 AM

He lost my county by 9 points,.. I’m not really surprised he carried the democrat strongholds, Cleveland, Columbus.. He literally carpet bombed us with negative Santorum ads,.. I can’t remember hearing a single pro-Rick one.. and of course the Obama superpacs chimed in, they seemed to like Romney alot, but Romney for all the whining his people are doing, won only in democrat heavy districts.. loosing all the conservative areas save one or two.

And isn’t that a good sign.Romney does well in democratic strongholds. In a general election hopefully he would do as well in these strongholds plus get the areas outside the big cities were Santorum and Gingrich are doing well.

Seems like a winning stratedgy for the general election.

however I’m sure the ABR’s will say the base won’t turn out for Romney. That’s their choice and if they get another 4 years of Obama that’s their choice too.

I will vote for any nominee but believe Mitt has the best chance.

gerry-mittbot

gerrym51 on March 7, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Typical Hot Air romneycare bias.

The picture of gingrich & santorium looking terrible, the picture of romneycare waving 7 smiling.

Do you guys know how obvious your romneycare bias appears. God, at least try to hide it better!

Danielvito on March 7, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Romney is up almost 4:1 in the delegate count, before today everyone was saying Santorum was the favorite in Ohio, and that if he lost it, it was game over. Now that Romney actually won Ohio, CNN and MSN are falling all over themselves last second to change the expectations — saying that Romney is underperforming and is in a real struggle. Give me a break — it is completely transparent that the media just wants to make the inevitable nominee to look as bad as possible and keep the attack ads going for as long as possible.

Dont buy the BS people.

kmalkows on March 7, 2012 at 10:57 AM

I won’t vote for Romney, and I have resigned myself to Obama winning re-election. The GOP blew it this cycle. Big Time.

Norwegian on March 7, 2012 at 10:45 AM

How is it the GOP blowing it, when people like you would rather see Obama re-elected then support Romney?

changer1701 on March 7, 2012 at 10:57 AM

I’m not at all surprised that Rick Santorum would sink to this level.

or, I should say, not surprised that his supporters would sink to this level. at the very least I have no doubt that Rick Santorum would approve of the message in the robocall, based on his previous statements.

bluegill on March 7, 2012 at 10:57 AM

I don’t think this means a brokered convention but what it may mean is that if Romney is going to get the nominmiation he’ll need to make some concessions to his challengers…at this point the value of supporting either Santorum or Gingrich is to stiffen Mittens spine.

ironmarshal on March 7, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Agreed. Good reminder. I think it would smooth a lot of ruffled feathers if that would be what happens. But all indications are that Romney and his supporters want the rest of us to just roll over for them. If the “inevitable nominee” shoe was on Santorum’s foot, there would be dozens of “I’m not voting for that kook” posts to read this morning.

oldroy on March 7, 2012 at 10:58 AM

But not until he’s driven a wedge into this party, which won’t help the GOP fight Obama.

The numbers don’t lie: There is NO way Santorum can win the nomination.

mountainaires on March 7, 2012 at 9:45 AM

That’s ignorant, that “wedge” was there long before this primary, and it wasn’t Santorum who created it. This is the usual fight between the conservatives, and the moderates that has been building since 89 and you mods couldn’t wait to stuff the social cons, and Christian right back out the door after Reagan brought us in.

I’ve lost count of the times one of you has reminded us for the umpteenth time Reagan is dead, move on..

Right..

The party’s greatest successes were when conservatives ran as such, and were not ashamed to say what they were. You mods have tried over and over to purge that crazy talk,.. no no, you must move to the middle chasing an ever leftward moving pop culture.

and don’t you dare fight back,.. it’ll scare the indies, if a conservative stands up for himself and tells the left to stop lying about him.. that’s divisive or something.

mark81150 on March 7, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Breitbart said he didn’t care who won the nomination, just that he’d support who ever did.. He would have supported any of them,..

sucks that you imply he was a Romney partisan, pretty low.

mark81150 on March 7, 2012 at 9:59 AM

lol, why?

Would you honestly argue, with a straight face, that Breitbart, who at a minimum was very socially libertarian (if not outright socially liberal), would prefer Rick Santorum over Mitt Romney?

Really?

Andrew “Fought for GOProud’s inclusion in CPAC” Breitbart, preferring Rick Santorum?

Rick Santorum?!?!

Vyce on March 7, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Between the orchestrated attacks on Romney from both the Left and the Right, I’m surprised that Romney did as well as he did yesterday. But the math is what it is. Neither Santorum or Gingrich have a chance to win the nomination. It’s time for us all to finally be Breitbart and unite behind Romney.

NuclearPhysicist on March 7, 2012 at 11:00 AM

The picture of gingrich & santorium looking terrible, the picture of romneycare waving 7 smiling.

Danielvito on March 7, 2012 at 10:56 AM

They use bad pictures of the candidate when the article contains bad news about the particular. They use happy, flattering pictures when something good happens to the candidate.

I guess it just so happens that even a pro-Santorum site like HotAir can’t hide the fact that the bigot Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are losing candidates without a whole lot of good to say about the state of their campaigns. So I suppose that’s why you see more bad pictures of Newt and the unelectable bigot Rick Santorum on the main page.

bluegill on March 7, 2012 at 11:03 AM

And isn’t that a good sign.Romney does well in democratic strongholds. In a general election hopefully he would do as well in these strongholds plus get the areas outside the big cities were Santorum and Gingrich are doing well.

Seems like a winning stratedgy for the general election.

however I’m sure the ABR’s will say the base won’t turn out for Romney. That’s their choice and if they get another 4 years of Obama that’s their choice too.

I will vote for any nominee but believe Mitt has the best chance.

gerry-mittbot

gerrym51 on March 7, 2012 at 10:56 AM

You nailed the nail on the head.

Romney is not losing the places that were red yesterday in the general. Those people, unless they dont vote, are voting Republican. However, if he can compete in the suburbs, and win even a small percentage of 2008 voters in the cities, he is going to be President.

That is more vital than Santorum winning solid Republican areas and getting destroyed in the suburbs and cities. He cant convince those Republicans and Independents now, and he wont on election day.

Hence, Santorum needs to drop out, and so does Newt. They are only in it now for selfish reasons that are hurting the party.

milcus on March 7, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Between the orchestrated attacks on Romney from both the Left and the Right, I’m surprised that Romney did as well as he did yesterday.

NuclearPhysicist on March 7, 2012 at 11:00 AM

The voters are seeing through the attacks. They know the best candidate is Romney. From day one I have had confidence in the voters, and they have consistently impressed me.

In a strange way, I wonder if being attacked so viciously by the liberal media AND the conservative media during the primary season will, in fact, be a benefit to Romney during the general election campaign. One can only hope.

bluegill on March 7, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Romney is up almost 4:1 in the delegate count, before today everyone was saying Santorum was the favorite in Ohio, and that if he lost it, it was game over. Now that Romney actually won Ohio, CNN and MSN are falling all over themselves last second to change the expectations — saying that Romney is underperforming and is in a real struggle. Give me a break — it is completely transparent that the media just wants to make the inevitable nominee to look as bad as possible and keep the attack ads going for as long as possible.

the MSM keep moving the goalposts.they can’t seem to understand that this primary is the first republican primary that is like the 2008 democratic primary. think back to obama,clinton,edwards in the first 3 months of their race.

the advantage Romney still has now is proportional delegates in march southern state primaries. he will still get delegates.

gerry-mittbot

gerrym51 on March 7, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Just heard on the radio that there was more good private jobs numbers out today and they are a precursor to the overall jobs numbers out on Friday. Obama has got this recovery timed PERFECTLY for his re-election.

gumbyandpokey on March 7, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Santorum, Gingrich and Paul are toast but won’t quit due to their inflated egos nurtured during their many years in Washington and their resultant entitlement attitudes. These 3 have nothing to offer except a loss to Obama.

It is tiring to hear how great a debator that Gingrich is. He is terrible! Note that the only debates that he has garnered praise is when he slammed the news media. He has never gotten the best of any of his opponents.

Santorum is a major whiner, nearly as bad as Palin.

Ron Paul is the only man that stands by his convictions (right or wrong from my view).

The only person that has been consistent is Romney and he is the only one that can win a debate and and an election with Obama. Romneycare only means something in the GOP primary and will have no impact during a general election. Romney lost many of the southern states due to the Southern Baptist war on him due to his religion, however he did remarkably well in spite of the evangelical coalition and the Democrats who voted in GOP elections.

The news media including Fox News want this primary to continue to keep their rating high, so all this talk about Romney not inspiring the base is absolutely ridiculous.

Face it — Romney will be the nominee!

lhuffman34 on March 7, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Do you guys know how obvious your romneycare bias appears. God, at least try to hide it better!

Danielvito on March 7, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Wearing it proudly and loudly. You call it a bias. I call my distaste and mistrust of Romney “calling like I see it”, and why would anyone try to hide it?

Do you Romney guys know how obvious your sneering and bias against any non-Romney voters is? All except for Ron Paul supporters that is.

I call RomneyCare a massive political liability and the measure of where this man truly stands in his policy – hand in hand with Obama.

I’ll vote for him. Only because his Supreme Nominees MIGHT be slighlty to the right of Obama’s.

oldroy on March 7, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Danielvito on March 7, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Daniel, we are both from mass. Are you SURE your not a democrat.
I voted for Mitt yesterday. who disd you vote for.

LOL

gerry-mittbot

gerrym51 on March 7, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4