As expected, another win in the heartland for Rick Santorum

posted at 8:15 pm on March 10, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Rick Santorum has, indeed, convincingly won Kansas, a state in which neither Mitt Romney nor Newt Gingrich really campaigned. All eyes have been and will continue to be on the South, but Santorum’s win in Kansas is still significant. Not only does the Sunflower State become Santorum’s eighth state to win, but the former Pennsylvania senator might very well have picked up all 40 of the state’s delegates:

Rick Santorum has won the Kansas Republican caucuses, according to Associated Press and network projections, his eighth statewide victory in the GOP presidential nomination battle. …

Santorum’s strength in Kansas overall — he was leading in all but one of the counties that had reported results as of 2:30 p.m. Central Standard Time –  was reflected in his overwhelming victory in the state’s biggest caucus.

In Sedgwick County, he won 1,640 votes, or 55.6%, trouncing his competitors in the race for the nomination and suggesting he may pick up all of the state’s 40 delegates if similar results are repeated in the other 95 caucuses.

As Ed pointed out this morning, Gingrich’s absence in Kansas is even more notable given his post-Florida promise to contest every single state, but Gingrich couldn’t afford to spare any time from campaigning in Mississippi and Alabama, two states he desperately needs to do well in — not to say “win” — to stay alive in the race.

Santorum’s win in Kansas might help him to pick up a point or two in the polls in the next crucial Southern states. It’s nearly as vital for Santorum to outright win Mississippi and Alabama as it is for Gingrich. While his campaign will continue either way, Tuesday is his best chance to knock Gingrich out of the race. While Mitt Romney wins in both states would probably also knock Gingrich out, they obviously would do nothing to move Santorum closer to the actual nomination. Whatever Santorum can do to parlay his eighth victory into his ninth and tenth on Tuesday, he’d better do.


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 5 6 7

I could not tell you the number of times Reagan was called an “extremist.” Now you want to cherry-pick his record and paint him as a moderate. You’re half-right, in that he was never really an extremist. But let’s not pretend that he wouldn’t still be called one today.

I was there too. It’s important to remember WHY Reagan was called an extremist. It was for one and only one reason: his strong anti-Communist foreign policy. The rap on Reagan was the same schtick the Left ran against Goldwater back in 1964: “he’ll start World War III!!” Reagan’s stark belief in “we’re right, they’re wrong” w/r/t the Soviet Union is what horrified liberals (and what thrilled most Americans.)

But on social issues? How soon we forget, my friend. Reagan explicitly ran as the former Democrat who didn’t leave the party, “the party left [him].” He constantly cited FDR as his most inspirational President. He signed the most permissive abortion law in the country as governor of California (and later claimed to regret it), and raised taxes twice while President. I’m not trying to run down Reagan in any way — he was a hero — but I am trying to point out that your gauzy, hagiographical memory of him is completely different with the reality of how Reagan profiled (and, more importantly, RAN HIS CAMPAIGN) back in 1980. He was a foreign policy super-hawk, and a non-’rock the boat’ moderate conservative in terms of social issues.

Romney is in no way to the ‘left’ of Reagan in terms of foreign policy, factoring for the admittedly different contexts the two are operating in. He has, more than any other GOP candidate, sketched an actually COHERENT foreign & defense policy focus (stop Iran from getting the Bomb, build up our Navy and work international economic levers to counter growing Chinese influence). On economic and domestic issues, though? Reagan, rhetoric aside, never came close to cutting spending or shrinking the size of government.

Esoteric on March 11, 2012 at 1:55 AM

If you were there, your memory is faulty or you’re being deliberately dishonest. Reagan was called an extremist repeatedly on multiple issues. He was called an extremist on abortion, on economics, on tax cuts, on defense, on nuclear weapons, on his small-government approach, on cutting taxes, on cutting spending, and so on.

Moderates hated him.

Was he perfect? No. He did agree to sign the abortion law, though it was the one mistake he publicly admitted to later. He accepted compromises on the deficits that he hated, in exchange for Democrat agreement to cut taxes now and Democrat promises to cut spending in the future. He was stalwart on Grenada and Libya, but compromised badly on Beirut.

So much for my memory being gauzy or hagiographic.

If you were simply ignorant of Reagan’s record, it would be one thing. But now you tell me you were there and remember it all, so you can’t escape your false statements and distortion. Reagan was vilified by the moderates and leftists alike as an extremist, and that tactic continues to this day. It’s the same reason that Romney was distancing himself from Reagan earlier in his political career, and the same reason that his followers today sneer at people who reject Romney as “True Conservatives.” Then, they try to distort Reagan into the same type of squishy moderate that Romney is himself, because otherwise he makes Romney look bad.

You distort Reagan’s record for no other reason than to pretend that Romney is a conservative.

There is no way that Reagan would have supported requiring private individuals to buy government-approved comprehensive healthcare plans. There is no way that Reagan would have called himself pro-choice, then suddenly claimed a conversion to pro-life. There is no way that Reagan would have approved global warming arguments, or tried to seize guns.

Just give up and admit that Romney is not a conservative, because everyone already knows it.

Moreover, Romney is less conservative than Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43, and probably Dole for that matter.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 12, 2012 at 3:38 AM

A vote supporting neither, especially from the supposed base, is a vote for the Bamster.

DHChron on March 11, 2012 at 8:03 PM

And an Obama supporter would claim that a Democrat who doesn’t vote at all would be voting for Romney. You can’t both be right, and in fact, you’re both wrong. Voting for neither is voting for neither. Stop trying to blame your inability to gather enough votes on the people you haven’t convinced.

MadisonConservative on March 11, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Ultimately, if a candidate loses the election, it’s not the fault of the people who failed to vote for him. It’s the fault of the candidate who failed to give enough people a reason to vote for him.

I think it’s a ridiculous exaggeration to call Santorum a “statist theocrat,” but it’s ultimately his responsibility to show people that he’s not.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 12, 2012 at 4:07 AM

Oh, and to close the loop, the fact I won’t choose between getting shot now or getting shot later, you’re accusing me of choosing to get shot now (and actually being a supporter of getting shot now). No, DHChron, your false dichotomy argument and your joined claims of “telling the truth” are abject lies. Anyone who understands logic, philosophy, rhetoric, understands you’re busily lying. And as MadCon said, trying to bully people (with your lies).

John Hitchcock on March 11, 2012 at 10:56 PM

get over yourself Johnny Flapperdong. No one is lying, no one needs a daffy duck analogy. We’re exchanging ideas – something you obviously deplore. MadCon was gracious enough to converse – you’re not gracious enough to even try. You just scream LIE!! and pat yourself on the back.

DHChron on March 12, 2012 at 7:50 AM

Well, I stopped reading after seeing this thread turned into a DHChron-ic-liar/Dr. Tesla pissing contest.

See you folks on another thread.

JannyMae on March 11, 2012 at 10:53 PM

you’re possibly worse than Johnny Flapdingle – you can’t even insult me to my face – an unjustified and slanderous insult to boot. Dr. Tesla has always expressed his opinions fairly and sometimes with riotous humor. That’s why I like talking to him. You on the other hand are a backstabbing “old timer”, jealous and spiteful of the new contingent of conservative posters and ideas.

DHChron on March 12, 2012 at 7:54 AM

Ultimately, if a candidate loses the election, it’s not the fault of the people who failed to vote for him. It’s the fault of the candidate who failed to give enough people a reason to vote for him.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 12, 2012 at 4:07 AM

this is an opinion I can respect, and an illustration of why the GOP is flailing in a year they should be dominating. When the best options sit out the game and mittens is the supposed savior, what is a small gov conservative to do? Obviously my opinion is to take the lesser of two evils. Supreme Court noms are extremely important, and that give me reason enough to vote for anyone on the GOP ticket.

DHChron on March 12, 2012 at 8:12 AM

Your headline is weird. Santorum won Kansas, and Romney did OK too in Wyoming and in the “Islands Caucus”, meaning Santorum took second place on the night. Romney won 39 delegates and Santorum 33. At this stage of the game, only Romney can “win” enough delegates to take the contest before the convention, and the best Gingrich and Santorum can hope to do is frustrate that win and get to a brokered convention.

Since Romney is everybody’s fifth choice among the candidates this is tough to accept, but at least let’s start headlining posts so that the winner gets credit. Romney won the round, and Santorum fell further behind.

MTF on March 12, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Ultimately, if a candidate loses the election, it’s not the fault of the people who failed to vote for him. It’s the fault of the candidate who failed to give enough people a reason to vote for him.

I think it’s a ridiculous exaggeration to call Santorum a “statist theocrat,” but it’s ultimately his responsibility to show people that he’s not.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 12, 2012 at 4:07 AM

Thank you. I can’t stand these people who seem to believe we “owe” whatever candidate gets the party nomination our vote. They are asking us for the highest executive position in our government. They owe us a reason to hire them.

MadisonConservative on March 12, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Thank you. I can’t stand these people who seem to believe we “owe” whatever candidate gets the party nomination our vote. They are asking us for the highest executive position in our government. They owe us a reason to hire them.

MadisonConservative on March 12, 2012 at 9:37 AM

I can’t stand those people either, which is why I’ve continuously stated my reason for voting GOP no matter what. It isn’t because I owe the stupid effin’ pubs – it’s because the Supreme Court matters.

DHChron on March 12, 2012 at 9:50 AM

DHChron on March 12, 2012 at 9:50 AM

2016 matters. A soft GOP administration for the next 4 years, a la Dubya part III, would put 2016 in jeopardy.

MadisonConservative on March 12, 2012 at 10:32 AM

2016 matters. A soft GOP administration for the next 4 years, a la Dubya part III, would put 2016 in jeopardy.

MadisonConservative on March 12, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Dubya won a second term :) but I see your point. If Obama wins, let’s hope the current Justices have strong hearts and no desire to retire within the next four and 1/2 years. That is, if the national debt hasn’t swallowed us whole like the freakin’ Blob by then.

DHChron on March 12, 2012 at 10:53 AM

DHChron on March 12, 2012 at 10:53 AM

I don’t see Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, or Kennedy going anywhere. Ginsberg? Breyer? Sure…but what is Obama going to do? Replace liberals with liberals. We’ll still have control.

MadisonConservative on March 12, 2012 at 11:04 AM

I don’t see Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, or Kennedy going anywhere. Ginsberg? Breyer? Sure…but what is Obama going to do? Replace liberals with liberals. We’ll still have control.

MadisonConservative on March 12, 2012 at 11:04 AM

only Death’s wanton scythe could alter our fortunes, and if he tries I’ll b!tch smack him to last Tuesday.

You have a way of reassuring me MadCon – stick with that. We’re both men of conviction; insults have no place in this conversation. I think you’re neither a slimy little weasel or a LIAR!! Let’s kick some progressive @ss between bong hits.

DHChron on March 12, 2012 at 11:14 AM

DHChron on March 12, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Easy rule: don’t misrepresent what I do or say, and I won’t go for your throat with my teeth. We’ll all get along swimmingly.

MadisonConservative on March 12, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Easy rule: don’t misrepresent what I do or say, and I won’t go for your throat with my teeth. We’ll all get along swimmingly.

MadisonConservative on March 12, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Easy solution: Check the whole thread…never did, never will :)

DHChron on March 12, 2012 at 12:16 PM

What is ironic is that before these Mittbots started in, hot and heavy, I was much more OPEN to the idea of voting for Mitt. They’ve actually done the opposite of what they intended to do.

JannyMae on March 11, 2012 at 12:44 PM

You let a bunch of of strangers who comment anonymously sway your vote for the most powerful position in the world during the most important election of our time? How shallow, what are you 15?
Being a gal of such strong conviction why not just go with the guy with the nicest hair?

Buttercup on March 12, 2012 at 1:06 PM

You let a bunch of of strangers who comment anonymously sway your vote for the most powerful position in the world during the most important election of our time? How shallow, what are you 15?

Buttercup on March 12, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Oh yeah. Much better to let a bunch of strangers who call you anonymously, send you emails or literature, or blog on websites sway your vote for the most powerful position int he world during the most important election of our time. Or, even, to let television commercials produced by groups with a vested interest in one candidate or another sway your vote.

Tell me, what does your feces smell like? Clearly, you don’t think it stinks.

MadisonConservative on March 12, 2012 at 1:11 PM

MadisonConservative on March 12, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Smells like victory.

Buttercup on March 12, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7