Open thread: Alabama and Mississippi; NBC calls Alabama for Santorum; Fox News calls Mississippi for Santorum; Santorum video added

posted at 7:30 pm on March 13, 2012 by Allahpundit

The polls close at 8 p.m. ET. Am I right in thinking that after two months and 26 elections, these are the first primaries that are legit toss-ups between all three candidates? Until now, it’s always been Romney vs. either Santorum or Gingrich as the regionally designated Not Romney, but tonight either state could break for any of them. RCP has them separated by less than three points in Alabama and six points in Mississippi. And bear in mind, per Nate Silver, polls of the deep south have been less reliable in recent years than polls of other regions. Anything could happen here, including a pair of 32/31/30 splits. Excitement.

Jay Cost notes that Romney should have a better shot in Alabama because he does well with urban voters and there are more of them there than in Mississippi. Serious question, though. Is a sweep Mitt’s most desirable outcome tonight? He badly wants to win one of these states so that he can claim the approval of the GOP’s southern base, but if he takes them both, Gingrich will be devastated and might very well quit notwithstanding his tough talk this morning. Romney doesn’t want a two-man race with Santorum: If Team Sweater Vest starts beating him head to head, then Mitt could well end up in June with a plurality of delegates (thanks to proportional rules) but a badly weakened case for why he should be the nominee at a brokered convention. I’m thinking maybe his optimal scenario is to win one state and have Newt win the other. That’ll keep Gingrich in the game while still giving Romney bragging rights about a win in the deep south. By the same token, the Romney (and Gingrich) disaster scenario is Santorum winning both states. It would give RS a killer talking point about the base lining up behind him to be the RINO dragon-slayer, which might be the death blow for Newt.

Here’s the Google Elections page for all your result-following needs. Don’t get too caught up in delegate counts for these states, though — Hawaii and American Samoa are also voting today so the numbers will change as their results come in overnight. (Romney is favored.) Lots of updates coming, including exit polls as soon as they’re available. While we wait, a point to ponder: Are we sure that Gingrich dropping out would be a big problem for Mitt? His own team claims that it wouldn’t. Based on some of the poll data, they might be right.

Update: Preliminary exit poll results show a lots of evangelicals turning out in both states, which is no surprise and is good news for Santorum, needless to say. The proportion of those voters in Alabama and Mississippi are in line with the proportions in Tennessee and Oklahoma, both of which he won comfortably.

Update: Via BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski, a lesson from 2007 on … “ultimate conservatism.”

Update: As promised, the Alabama and Mississippi exit polls. Back in a few with highlights.

Update: An interesting gender split in Alabama: Newt narrowly won men while Santorum won women by eight points. (So much for the “women hate RS” meme.) And yet, based on the numbers, it looks like Newt is set to finish just a hair behind Romney in third place. Two other interesting data points. First, ideology:

That’s confirmation of the CW all the way. Santorum wins righties over Newt, the center-right splits three ways, and then Romney cleans up with moderates and liberals. Similarly:

Rarely have you seen three different candidates split this perennial question about qualities the electorate is looking for, but here you go. Again, perfect reflection of the CW. See why we’re in for a close race?

Misssissippi exit analysis coming up.

Update: Same odd story for Newt in Mississippi. He wins narrowly among men but may yet end up finishing a very close third because of Romney’s and Santorum’s relative strength with women. Here’s the data point of the night so far, though:

Fully 80 percent of the electorate is evangelical — and Romney somehow managed to fight Santorum to a draw among them. If he ends up winning the state, that’s the story. Another surprisingly strong Romney showing comes with voters without a college degree. That’s supposed to be Newt’s and Rick’s bread and butter, but no:

Romney also tied Santorum for the lead among voters who make less than $50,000 per year. As for qualities in a candidate, Mississippi looks a lot like Alabama:

And one more just for fun that someone flagged on Twitter:

Among voters who said Ron Paul’s positions are “about right,” the candidate of choice is … Mitt Romney?

Needless to say, Santorum can live with splitting these states with Romney. Job one is getting Gingrich out of the race ASAP. If Newt finishes third in both, we might very well see it. I wonder if we’ll see it tonight.

Update: David Freddoso has a copy of a memo sent out tonight by Team Newt vowing that they’ll soldier on, which sounds like they’re conceding the evening. Bachmann vowed to soldier on the night she finished last in Iowa too but was gone the next day. Stay tuned.

Update: It’s now 90 minutes after the polls closed and … 7.2 percent of Alabama precincts have reported. Santorum leads there and in Mississippi (where 24 percent have reported) as I write this.

Update: Romney told CNN earlier that Santorum is at “the desperate end of his campaign.” Right message, wrong target.

Update: At 9:53 ET, and with only 26 percent reporting, NBC finally calls Alabama for Santorum. And don’t look now, but with 78 percent reporting in Mississippi, Santorum is clinging to a 2,000-vote lead over Gingrich. Romney is another 2,000 votes back. Looks like the exits got it wrong there, likely vis-a-vis the evangelical numbers.

The worst-case scenario for Mitt tonight was a Santorum sweep. We’re on the verge of it.

Update: Aha. Philip Klein notes that CNN has now updated their exit poll numbers. (Unfortunately, the early data isn’t always final.) Remember how it was a big deal that Romney and Santorum were tied at 32 among evangelicals in Mississippi? Here’s how it looks now:

That’s why Rick is doing better than expected and Mitt’s doing worse.

Update: Mississippi’s not called yet but Team Santorum is already elbowing Newt:

Rick Santorum spokesperson Alice Stewart said she believes after Tuesday night it will be a “two-man race” between Santorum and Mitt Romney…

A “son of the South” like Gingrich, she said, “should be doing much better than this.”

“This is going to be, after tonight, this will be a two-man race,” Stewart said. “It’s going to be Rick and Mitt, and we’re going to clear the field and Rick’s got a good shot down the road.”

Update: Now 83 percent reporting in Mississippi and the numbers are holding — Santorum by 2,000 votes over Gingrich and Romney 5,000 votes behind. Jackson’s county, where Romney is piling up votes, is 89 percent in right now so there’s not much meat on the bone left there either for him.

Update: With 90 percent in now, Santorum’s lead has expanded to more than 3,000 votes. I’m reluctant to forecast a race even at this late hour after the last-minute Romney comeback in Ohio, but it looks like Team Sweater Vest is going to pull off the sweep. One last dramatic twist to this interminable primary.

Update: More than 96 percent in now as of 10:40 ET and Santorum’s lead is nearly 4,000 votes. He’s going to pull this off and Romney’s going to finish third in both states. What a deflating defeat for the presumptive nominee, especially after that early exit poll had him winning Mississippi. We should get the call soon.

Update: At 10:43 ET, there’s the call from Fox News. Santorum wins Mississippi and sweeps the southern primaries today. Wow.

Update: Matt Lewis says it’s time for Newt to take a hint:

While the idea Gingrich could or would win a brokered convention seems absurd, it is likely that continuing to accrue delegates would give him additional bargaining leverage going into the Republican convention in Tampa this summer.

But there are good reasons for Gingrich to reject that cynical strategy. First, if he truly believes Mitt Romney is a “Massachusetts moderate” masquerading as a conservative, then he owes it to Republican voters to give former Sen. Rick Santorum a clean shot at wresting the nomination from him. I’m pretty sure Santorum has earned it.

Second, staying in the race — merely in order to play a king maker or to curry favor at a later time — is hardly the most honorable or inspiring reason to remain in a race. Gingrich would be essentially asking donors to contribute money to a campaign he knows cannot win — and he would be asking voters to cast their votes for a candidate he knows can’t win.

Gingrich’s problem after tonight is that he might have lost the last shreds of his constituency, whether or not he’s inclined to quit. If you’re a Republican who’s dead set against nominating Romney, what’s the argument for sticking with Newt? Either you’re staying home because you can’t stand Santorum or else you’re gritting your teeth and pulling the lever for the Sweater Vest. There’s no compelling reason to go to the polls for Gingrich. He can’t win even in his own backyard.

Update: PPP: “Our NC GOP poll coming out tomorrow shows an 8 point shift toward Santorum if Newt was out. Nothing but a spoiler at this point.” If Newt wants revenge on Romney for spoiling his chances in Iowa and Florida, dropping out and endorsing Santorum is his best option.

Update: Gingrich is giving his concession speech now and vowing to go on but I don’t think it’s up to him. His voters need to decide their next move. If they break for Santorum and he starts beating Romney head to head — starting next Tuesday in Illinois — then he’s got a compelling narrative headed into the convention even if Mitt ends up winning a plurality of delegates. Namely, “the only reason Romney ended up with a delegate lead is because Newt and I split conservatives in the early primaries. Once Newt faded and it turned into a binary choice, I was the clear preference of the majority.” That is to say, if Santorum can put together a winning streak against Romney, he can point to tonight’s results as a de facto “reset” of the primary. Southern voters discarded Gingrich and adopted him and that propelled him to a series of wins. Forget the delegate count and focus on that strenuous “Not Romney” sentiment among Republican voters. That’s his argument. Romney needs a counter.

Update: Here’s Santorum’s speech, in which he marvels “we did it again.” Elsewhere, Nate Silver remembers that Gingrich’s own spokesman called Alabama and Mississippi must-wins for him just a few days ago.


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 20 21 22

Hmmm, seems to me from the logic being thrown around here against Santorum and Gingrich, now that the dynamics are seriously changing in this race, that it’s not the slam-dunk for Rmoney that we were supposed to swallow from the get-go and that Rmoney may not actually get all the delegates he needs, why do Rick or Newt need to drop out first? Maybe he should do the right thing for the party and bow out since it’s more than obvious there is a strong dislike and distrust of him among republicans and he’s not going over well. The playing field is evening out and what’s good for the goose as they say. Just a thought…

mozalf

Long slog strategy means not having to win every state. Fact is that the math doesn’t work for anyone else.

Zaggs on March 14, 2012 at 9:00 AM

2 white guys and a moving van won’t win in Nov- #2 slot has to have some appeal to women/ minorities. Or forget peeling away many swing voters.

FlaMurph on March 14, 2012 at 7:56 AM

You really think the Romney bases love of excluding evangelicals and social cons is going to result in a windfall of Hispanic and women voters, left leaning independents?

Seriously?

How about Romney and your side swallow your stubborn pride and do the smart thing, what he should have done before yesterday and talk to Rick with a mind to inclusion of his voters. You don’t get a win in November by disgarding your loyalest base voters, much as many in the libertarian wing want to purge us.

and are you that prejudiced against social cons that you think Hispanics, who are very family oriented, socially conservative would never vote if one of us was on the ticket? It doesn’t have to be Rick necessarily, but he can deal to get a social con as VP, signifigant cabinet posts.. that gives Santorum enfluence on policy, even if Romney sets it. A coalition has a better chance with the base on board than hoping against hope that maybe indies and Hispanics will like you.

Besides,..

you never heard of an Hispanic social con? a woman?.. we have plenty, even excepting Palin, there are names.

To say a coalition has no chance with independents when Obama is tanking now, with a long time till November for folks to hate his energy policies, and Obamacare..

We can make it work, the only rough spot is the bitter dead enders in the Romney camp who demand a free ride, and after Romney has alienated us with his put them to the torch ads,.. if we can set that aside, your side can eat it’s pride.. if you want to win.

mark81150 on March 14, 2012 at 9:02 AM

Anonimo on March 14, 2012 at 8:54 AM

Bible Thumpers Christians) make up 78% of the country’s population, per Gallup.

Care to re-state that?

kingsjester on March 14, 2012 at 9:00 AM

I don’t think I said anything about Bible Thumpers.

BTW, I doubt “Bible Thumper” is an official Gallup polling category…

Anonimo on March 14, 2012 at 9:02 AM

Just an observation. What is this crap about calling the candidates with their first name?

mnjg on March 14, 2012 at 8:51 AM

It’s meant to make them seem more approachable, less like “the boss”. (And, a couple of ‘em have fun names to say, i.e., Mitt and Newt.)

Fallon on March 14, 2012 at 9:05 AM

Newt and Santorum will fight it out for LA and TX. At the end of the day Newt can still finish ahead of Sanitarium. I don’t see either winning a winner take all state.

rubberneck on March 14, 2012 at 9:09 AM

You really think the Romney bases love of excluding evangelicals and social cons is going to result in a windfall of Hispanic and women voters, left leaning independents?

mark81150 on March 14, 2012 at 9:02 AM

You forgot to add fiscal conservatives in there too.

Doomberg on March 14, 2012 at 9:09 AM

Just an observation. What is this crap about calling the candidates with their first name?

mnjg on March 14, 2012 at 8:51 AM

It’s meant to make them seem more approachable, less like “the boss”. (And, a couple of ‘em have fun names to say, i.e., Mitt and Newt.)

Fallon

Plus, outside of Paul, none of them have a job. I always thought calling Mitt Governor or Newt Speaker just seems stupid.

Zaggs on March 14, 2012 at 9:11 AM

Anonimo on March 14, 2012 at 9:02 AM

My apology. Wrong “a” poster. Gallup surveyed people who proclaim their Christianity. The Bible is what we read.

kingsjester on March 14, 2012 at 9:14 AM

You really think the Romney bases love of excluding evangelicals and social cons is going to result in a windfall of Hispanic and women voters, left leaning independents?

mark81150

Pretty sure Romney was already doing better with Hispanics than the other contenders. In Florida he absolutely CRUSHED everyone in Hispanic support. Not seeing anywhere where Romney lost the Hispanic vote. Also social cons and evangelicals would most likely be the same block.
Also not pandering to social cons, which is really what Mitt is guilty of, will bring in indies and he hasn’t done too bad with women either.

Zaggs on March 14, 2012 at 9:18 AM

CorporatePiggy on March 14, 2012 at 8:20 AM

Run out of Mormon slurs? Help me out here. Are all Mormon “cultists” “shifty-eyed” or just Mitt?

MJBrutus on March 14, 2012 at 8:23 AM

.
Just Mormons like Harry Reid.

Mitt falls somewhere between Harry Reid and Glenn Beck.

Exactly where “between Glenn and Harry” Mitt falls is in the eyes of the beholder.

listens2glenn on March 14, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Anonimo on March 14, 2012 at 9:02 AM

My apology. Wrong “a” poster. Gallup surveyed people who proclaim their Christianity. The Bible is what we read.

kingsjester on March 14, 2012 at 9:14 AM

No need for apology. I read it too (although that’s not always a popular thing to discuss…) Just think how cool I’d be if I could talk about the Dali Lama or Buddah like I could the Bible at cocktail parties…

Anonimo on March 14, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Just Mormons like Harry Reid.

Mitt falls somewhere between Harry Reid and Glenn Beck.

Exactly where “between Glenn and Harry” Mitt falls is in the eyes of the beholder.

listens2glenn on March 14, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Let’s keep it civil, people. The democrats have already uncovered that Romney is some kind of high priest or bishop in his church. That doesn’t creep me out as much as his policies and his flip-flopping. That’s where we need to keep it focused because that’s where he’s most vulnerable and losing confidence the more people investigate his record.

mozalf on March 14, 2012 at 9:50 AM

mozalf on March 14, 2012 at 9:50 AM

.
Please accept my apology for coming off as anti-Mormon. That was not my intent, and based on your post I’m pretty sure you and I are in agreement on that.

listens2glenn on March 14, 2012 at 10:00 AM

…and are you that prejudiced against social cons that you think Hispanics, who are very family oriented, socially conservative would never vote if one of us was on the ticket? It doesn’t have to be Rick necessarily, but he can deal to get a social con as VP, signifigant cabinet posts.. that gives Santorum enfluence on policy, even if Romney sets it. A coalition has a better chance with the base on board than hoping against hope that maybe indies and Hispanics will like you.

mark81150 on March 14, 2012 at 9:02 AM

Personally, I hate the whole idea of categorizing and dividing Republican voters into ‘social conservatives’ and ‘fiscal conservatives’, much less promoting candidates who exemplify the extremes of one or the other.

Santorum, for example, is solely a social conservative, a one-trick pony. His big government voting record, his support of Arlen Specter, his publicly stated positions regarding the major role he believes the government should have in the private lives of individual citizens are anything but conservative, as the word ‘conservative’ is commonly understood. The GOP platform already embraces a pro-life agenda, supports the institution of heterosexual marriage, and promotes traditional social mores. That’s good enough for me. I don’t need or want a candidate who wears his or her faith on their sleeve.

Single-issue candidates are usually crushed in national elections because wrapping political party identity around a single cause is an inherently exclusionary tactic. You make the tent too small. You lose. By the way, how’s the Anti-Masonic Party doing nowadays, anyway?

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 10:01 AM

This can’t be repeated enough times:
Discussion of Romney’s Mormonism is a distraction….he is a horrible choice because he is a pacifist liberal democrat who wants to “keep the good parts” of Obamacare….he also lies and changes his position on issues more than any politician in the history of U.S. politics (except for Obama). His candidacy is a complete and utter disgrace and disaster. Furthermore, anyone who has as many sons as Romney and yet NONE OF THEM has served their country in the U.S. military in ANY capacity is suspect…not a person I want as CIC. Mitt ‘Milquetoast’ Romney is a pacifist democrat with ZERO credibility to take this country to war and command troops (just like obama, maybe worse). Draft Rick Perry and get this show on the road!

Perry/West is my choice!
NO OBAMA!
NO OBAMACARE!
NO ROMNEY!
NO ROMNEYCARE!
DUMP MITT NOW!

Pragmatic on March 14, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Please accept my apology for coming off as anti-Mormon. That was not my intent, and based on your post I’m pretty sure you and I are in agreement on that.

listens2glenn on March 14, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Absolutely we’re in agreement. And like Prag writes up above (except for the Rick Perry part) focus on Rmoney’s weaknesses of which there are plenty.

mozalf on March 14, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Totally OT, but at the end of a thread listed at 2,112 comments. For that cool reason alone, I’ll post this.

Packing last night for an out-of-town trip, I found a torn, aged scrap of the upper portion of one page of a paperback behind the bookcase. It is by Mark Twain, from the book “Life on the Mississippi.”

Somehow, reading this fragile scrap of junk paper last night with printed words on it from a man who died a century ago, I found some metaphysical connections.

Make of it what you will – I will type it all in to give the scrap a last gasp of life, as I toss it in the bin….:
————————

P. 273.

AN ARCHANGEL

…other disadvantage: it was situated in a flat mud bottom, below high-water mark, whereas Quincy stands high up on the slope of a hill.

In the beginning, Quincy had the aspect and ways of a model New England town: and these she has yet: broad, clean streets, trim, neat dwellings and lawns, fine mansions, stately blocks of commercial buildings. And there are ample fairgrounds, a well-kept park, and many attractive drives; library, reading rooms, a couple of colleges, some handsome and costly churches, and a grand courthouse, with grounds which occupy a square. The population of the city is thirty thousand. There are some large factories here, and manufacturing, of many sorts, is done on a great scale.

….. and Canton are growing towns, but I missed…..

[page break - rest is missing]

p. 274

LIFE ON THE MISSISSIPPI

…his permanent possession. In this way he acquired a vast hoard of all sorts of learning, and had it pigeonholed in his head where he could put his intellectual hand on it whenever it was wanted.

His clothes differed in no respect from a “wharf rat’s,” except that they were raggeder, more ill-assorted and inharmonious (and therefore more extravagantly picturesque), and several layers dirtier. Nobody could infer the mastermind in the top of that edifice from the edifice itself.

He was an orator – by nature in the first place, and later by the training of experience and practice. When he was out on a canvass, his name was a loadstone which drew the farmers to his stump from fifty miles around. His theme was always politics. He used no notes, for a volcano does not need notes. In 1862, a son of Keokuk’s late distinguished… [page missing]“

cane_loader on March 14, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Ed Morrissey on March 14, 2012 at 8:38 AM

; ) You sir are as bad as me, when it comes to reading the boards. Keep em honest. And thanks for letting me stay on. For the record just the breeze that glorious hammer you and Allah sport is frightening.

Bmore on March 14, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Welcome to the South

Bmore on March 14, 2012 at 10:16 AM

The operative word over on Townhall.com is “Mittwits”

cavalier973 on March 14, 2012 at 3:39 AM

Oh, right: Townhall, that bastion of conservative thought which still features columns by Patrick ‘Hitler was a great man’ Buchanan. Love the way Townhall promotes those occasional Buchanan articles about the evil influence of the AIPAC Jewish lobby on American policy makers, or his in-depth analyses of the real motives driving various Israeli policy decisions. Giving a fringe bigot like Buchanan a supposedly respectable conservative venue discredits pretty much anything coming out of there.

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Ed Morrissey on March 14, 2012 at 8:38 AM

; ) You sir are as bad as me, when it comes to reading the boards. Keep em honest. And thanks for letting me stay on. For the record just the breeze that glorious hammer you and Allah sport is frightening.

Bmore on March 14, 2012 at 10:14 AM

.
You felt the ‘breeze’ ? ! !
.
That’s too close . . .

listens2glenn on March 14, 2012 at 10:19 AM

listens2glenn on March 14, 2012 at 10:19 AM

; )

Bmore on March 14, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Bmore, you’ve been so familiar since you’ve joined, I think you’ve got to know Ed personally or professionally. Or if not, you are quite chummy. Wherever you came from, a (quite) belated welcome to Hot Air :-)

cane_loader on March 14, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Allah’s Silver Hammer the other day was quite frightening because it was seamless and left no trace.

Anti-climactic, actually.

Allah, a little more blood, for cosmetics, wouldn’t hurt ;-)

cane_loader on March 14, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Talk about a depressed base.

liberal4life on March 14, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Talk about a depressed base.

liberal4life on March 14, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Would that be yours or ours? As an aside, I love the way your side showed its not-so-pretty fascist face by attempting to boycott and ban Rush Limbaugh from the airwaves. I’m no big fan of the big man and his big mouth, but he took you and yours to school. And your hypocrisy regarding ‘respect for women’ after that million-dollar Bill Maher donation debacle? Priceless.

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Let’s keep it civil, people. The democrats have already uncovered that Romney is some kind of high priest or bishop in his church. That doesn’t creep me out as much as his policies and his flip-flopping…
mozalf on March 14, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Um, this was hardly some deep dark secret which only awesome Dem oppo-research could uncover. Oh well, sorry it “creeps you out”…

Buy Danish on March 14, 2012 at 11:19 AM

mozalf on March 14, 2012 at 9:50 AM

So far, the voters in the swing states have supported Romney over the ABRs. Had EgoNewt got out of the way – it may be a different story. But winning Miss, Ala, OK KS- the reddest of the red states only confirms the religious conservatism of those states.

If Santorum cannot beat Romney in swing states, he will be at a huge disadvantage in the GE. That’s where EgoNewt will end up hurting him the most.

It always about the swing states, always.

FlaMurph on March 14, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Wouldn’t you love to be a fly on Donald Trump’s wall today?!?! He, John and Meghan McCain must be singing the blues. :-) Message trumps money pardon the pun.

mozalf on March 14, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Please accept my apology for coming off as anti-Mormon. That was not my intent, and based on your post I’m pretty sure you and I are in agreement on that.

listens2glenn on March 14, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Riiiight. He doesn’t sound anti-Mormon in the least, what with his being “creeped out” and all./

Buy Danish on March 14, 2012 at 11:25 AM

cane_loader on March 14, 2012 at 10:43 AM

You are one of the reasons I was happy to get the invite. Thanks! I have always enjoyed HotAir.

Bmore on March 14, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Talk about a depressed base.

liberal4life on March 14, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Actually little one, I find this all very exhilarating.

Bmore on March 14, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Riiiight. He doesn’t sound anti-Mormon in the least, what with his being “creeped out” and all./

Buy Danish on March 14, 2012 at 11:25 AM

The issue with Mitt is not his Mormonism but I do reserve the right to make the occasional crack about it is a cult.

People would happily vote for Mitt without thinking about his religion. After all what religion is Baroque?

The problem with Mitt is more serious than his Mormonism.

CorporatePiggy on March 14, 2012 at 11:48 AM

cane_loader on March 14, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Peeked back in to see what had transpired since my last look and I read your post. Hubby’s from that area, Quincy and Keokuk. (Iowa was to Central Illinois as Wisconsin was to Northern Illinois teens, if you grew up in the 70′s and know what I mean.) You made me smile.

Mark Twain is a national treasure.

Fallon on March 14, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Romney should be talking deal with Santorum.. he really should.

mark81150 on March 14, 2012 at 7:14 AM

Job number one is defeating PBHO. I doubt that will ever happen, but if such were the price to bring it about, then I say yeah, do it now.

MJBrutus on March 14, 2012 at 7:40 AM

Something like a beer summit? Maybe they should get together over a beer soda non-caffeinated drink glass of water and discuss a fusion ticket.

Jurisprudence on March 14, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Morning newsflash: Obama/Biden asking for donations because polls say they can’t beat Mitt Romney.

Buy Danish on March 14, 2012 at 8:09 AM

Newsflash: it was reverse psychology, not reality.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Newsflash: it was reverse psychology, not reality.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Memo: Motivate the donor anyway you can.

FlaMurph on March 14, 2012 at 12:42 PM

CorporatePiggy on March 14, 2012 at 11:48 AM

What you think is irrelevant to what “mozalf” said, and to how his dopey comrade “listens2glenn” responded.

Newsflash: it was reverse psychology, not reality.
Schadenfreude on March 14, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Oh, it’s reality alright.

Buy Danish on March 14, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Buy Danish on March 14, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Hey, get your panties untwisted ok. You’re making stuff up and distorting and it’s getting old. Get off the mormon kick will ya!

mozalf on March 14, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Still very ANGRY that no one has called out RINO Romney (aka Obama-Lite) for LYING, LYING, LYING All Over Florida about Gingrich (see “What Really Happened to the Gingrich Ethics Case?” By Byron York, Townhall.com, 2/6/12)!?!?! Gingrich would have been in much better shape right now if Willard (from the RAT movie of the same name) hadn’t LIED, LIED, LIED all over Iowa and Florida about Gingrich!?! And this is the RepublicRAT establishment’s guy??? It’s like replacing the current J@ck@ss LIAR-In-Chief with the (R) version!?! ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION ILLINOIS???

Colatteral Damage on March 14, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Hey, get your panties untwisted ok. You’re making stuff up and distorting and it’s getting old. Get off the mormon kick will ya!
mozalf on March 14, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Ha! I didn’t distort a damn thing. You brought up his position in the Mormon church, You stated it “creeped you out” (but not as much as his “flip-flops!). Your words, you own them. The hilarious part is your friend actually took that sentence as a positive.

Buy Danish on March 14, 2012 at 5:07 PM

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 10:17 AM

So…anyway, “Mittwits” is better than Rombots, etc.

cavalier973 on March 14, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Santorum, for example, is solely a social conservative, a one-trick pony. His big government voting record, his support of Arlen Specter, his publicly stated positions regarding the major role he believes the government should have in the private lives of individual citizens are anything but conservative, as the word ‘conservative’ is commonly understood. The GOP platform already embraces a pro-life agenda, supports the institution of heterosexual marriage, and promotes traditional social mores. That’s good enough for me. I don’t need or want a candidate who wears his or her faith on their sleeve.

Single-issue candidates are usually crushed in national elections because wrapping political party identity around a single cause is an inherently exclusionary tactic. You make the tent too small. You lose. By the way, how’s the Anti-Masonic Party doing nowadays, anyway?

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Santorum has the smallest government voting record of all the serious candidates (Sorry for excluding Ron Paul, but come on!) Gingrich has toyed with the ideas of full-government control of healthcare and individual mandates, and Romney did a lot more than toy with with them.

There is no objective or reasonable way to compare Romney and Santorum and conclude that Santorum is the big-government guy. The most you can do is find a few compromise votes that you can find for any person who’s been in the Senate for a full term or more. (I exclude Obama here for obvious reasons. No need to compromise on legislation when you’re never around for a vote, anyway.)

There are only two candidates that can plausibly be called conservative, and those are Gingrich and Santorum. But we read tons of people calling them big-government liberals while promoting the biggest government liberal running, Romney.

It makes no sense.

tom on March 14, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Comment pages: 1 20 21 22