Two man race?

posted at 8:40 am on March 14, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

That’s the question coming from the media today after Rick Santorum unexpectedly won both Southern primaries last night.  Santorum won Alabama by six points over Gingrich, who barely edged past Romney for second place by 1,318 votes, and surprised everyone by winning Mississippi by two points over Gingrich.  Romney’s third-place finish in both gave a black eye to Romney, who had appeared to be winning in Mississippi in the last few days, although Romney went on to win the caucuses in Hawaii by 20 points, and in American Samoa as well.

While Gingrich reiterated that he won’t quit, Matt Lewis says it’s time for him to get out:

At least twice during this GOP primary season, former Speaker Newt Gingrich’s campaign was left for dead. He impressively battled back — against the odds — each time. For demonstrating toughness — and for always injecting energy and new ideas into the GOP debate — Gingrich has earned our respect.

But there won’t be another comeback. Not this year, at least. Having lost two southern states tonight — ostensibly the geographic bloc that should be his base — the time has come for Gingrich to exit the race. …

Newt Gingrich surprised us all by taking a shoestring campaign all the way into March of 2012. He won South Carolina, and his home state of Georgia. He should be proud of the campaign he has run. But if he wants to remain proud of his efforts, it’s important to go out in a classy manner.

The rest of the media isn’t waiting for a concession speech.  The Washington Post has already declared it a two-man race, “symbolically”:

Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum’s twin wins in Alabama and Mississippi Tuesday night are almost certain to give him what he has long wanted: A one-on-one race with former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.

The victories by Santorum came in the political backyard of Newt Gingrich and are likely to symbolically — if not literally — end the former speaker’s hopes in the race.

CBS believes that last night sent the Matt Lewis message to both Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul, and predicts a groundswell among conservatives to rally around Santorum:

Before Newt Gingrich emerged Tuesday night in Birmingham to address supporters following his losses in Mississippi and Alabama, his wife Callista introduced him as “the next president of the United States.”

At this point, you have to wonder if even she still believes it.

Gingrich has won just two states in this primary process, and on Tuesday night he lost the two contests that he needed to win to have any chance to rejuvenate his campaign. Rick Santorum has now unambiguously claimed the mantle of consensus conservative alternative to Mitt Romney, and the race has now been transformed into a two-man battle for delegates, with Gingrich and Ron Paul on the outside looking in.

That’s not how Gingrich says he sees it, of course. In his remarks Tuesday, he dismissed the “elite media” for the coming calls to drop out and vowed to stay in the race until the nominating convention. However, it’s worth noting that the most important calls for Gingrich to exit will likely come not from the media, but the conservative establishment, which will now rally unambiguously behind Santorum.

National Journal thinks it’s a two-man race as well, but that Santorum is still in trouble:

Alabama and Mississippi threw former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum a lifeline Tuesday, knocking Newt Gingrich on his heels and the Republican presidential nomination at least temporarily out of Mitt Romney’s reach.

The twin Southern victories will help Santorum frame the contest going forward as a two-man race against Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who has won more states and delegates than any other candidate.

Gingrich, who tried to position himself as the South’s prodigal son after winning South Carolina and his home state of Georgia, will face mounting pressure to exit the race. The former House speaker spent more time in Alabama and Mississippi than any of his rivals. But Santorum has stolen Gingrich’s base out from under him, having also defeated him last week in Oklahoma and Tennessee.

“No question, Santorum has emerged as the conservative challenger to Romney, while Romney remains a weak front-runner no matter how you play the expectations,” said Greg Mueller, a conservative Republican strategist. “He is having trouble energizing conservatives when choices like Santorum and Gingrich are in the race.”

Will this be a two-man race?  I don’t see Gingrich departing before Louisiana on the 24th.  After that, there is a ten-day stretch in which Gingrich will have time to reconsider his chances in the race and think about how much cash he has left.  Santorum already had a small polling lead in Louisiana, and the results from Mississippi and Alabama are likely to enhance his standing in the state, and Romney will almost certainly spend a lot of money in his last chance to win a Deep South state for another two months.  Gingrich might not even place second in Louisiana.

Nevertheless, for all intents and purposes this has become a two-man race, regardless of how many others stick around.  Gingrich’s only chance left was to win the South and then argue that Republicans couldn’t win in November with a nominee who couldn’t win in Dixie.  Now that Santorum has won three states in the South (he won Tennessee last week) to Gingrich’s two, Santorum prevails even on Ginrich’s best argument.  I’d expect to hear that Gingrich will suspend his campaign sometime in the final week of March.


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 5

OK Newt nuts, tell me how this serves or saves the Republican Party?

Snake307 on March 14, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Please explain how waiting for 60 days before Election Day to have a candidate to face down a billion-dollar incumbent’s campaign qualifies as a good idea.

Red Cloud on March 14, 2012 at 9:48 AM

I’m not a Newt nut, but I’ll take a swing at it. Newt keeps Romney, who many of us dislike as a candidate, from winning the nomination, the contest goes to the convention. The troops rally around a candidate, as of yet not named, and all of the oppo research and money spent by Obama on atacking the Fantastic Four is wasted.

And, unless they disable the gift and credit card security codes on the internet again, Obama isn’t raising a billion bucks, not this time.

Fallon on March 14, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Santorum doesn’t lead in either category. Going by CBS the actual unpledged count is very low. National Journal has the count when you take out the caucus results before last night at 336 to 96 in favor of Romney.
The “pledged, unpledged” is meaningless (which is why I never bothered) unless its a photo finish or someone drops out.
But even then, count to count Romney came out ahead last night/this morning.

Zaggs on March 14, 2012 at 10:02 AM

The pledged/unpledged issue hasn’t been a factor in my lifetime. If the delegate counts are close enough to warrant a brokered convention, it could be. I’m just itching for someone to tell me that it’s a done deal and Romney has this wrapped up. I love it when Rombots sound desperate.

gryphon202 on March 14, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Edit – add another “t” to attacking.

Fallon on March 14, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Would you agree that it would have been better if he hadn’t gone down this road at all?

shannon76

As someone who enjoys using self-deprecating humor? No. Rather have someone who makes fun of themselves than someone who is whining about how unfair everything is.

Zaggs on March 14, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Neither are conservative.

Dante on March 14, 2012 at 10:00 AM

There all we’ve got that can be considered even remotely in that category. Are they perfect? No. Will I vote and VOCALLY SUPPORT whomever the nominee is? You bet your a$$.

Rixon on March 14, 2012 at 10:06 AM

I don’t like ANY of them.

Out of the group that decided to run, Perry was by far the best choice-but he sucked @ debates. Nooooo. ///
Mitt is NOT THE ENEMY.
OBAMA IS THE ENEMY.
Mitt CAN beat Zero.

Eyes on the ball. please.
I will continue to repeat this until certain people get it.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 14, 2012 at 10:07 AM

The pledged/unpledged issue hasn’t been a factor in my lifetime. If the delegate counts are close enough to warrant a brokered convention, it could be. I’m just itching for someone to tell me that it’s a done deal and Romney has this wrapped up. I love it when Rombots sound desperate.

gryphon202 on March 14, 2012 at 10:04 AM

The fact that Rmoney is using democrat sleazy tactics against fellow republicans is very telling and revealing. Especially when he comes in 3rd and not even 2nd!

mozalf on March 14, 2012 at 10:07 AM

If your point is that Santorum is more electable and is more troubling to the Left than Romney then I feel that I should go easy on you. It’s not your fault that this is all going completely over your head. Nobody was cheering louder last night than ObaMao and his crew.

cicerone on March 14, 2012 at 9:54 AM

And if you think this passes as a legitimate response, I’m obviously wasting my time.

In any case, I don’t take my cues from the Left (assuming the public expressions of preference are genuine), so whomever they currently deem “more troubling” is completely immaterial to me. I absolutely believe RS has a better chance of beating Obama than does Romney. We need a candidate who poses a stark contrast to Obama and, again, one who has credibility on the most important issues of our day. Mitt has an absolutely horrific track-record as a candidate, yet you guys think if you shout that “he’s the most electable!!!” with sufficient vigor and frequency, it’ll somehow make it true.

lawya on March 14, 2012 at 10:07 AM

If you think I said anything like that, you gather poorly. Everyone should pledge to vote for whoever the GOP nominates.

hawkdriver on March 14, 2012 at 9:53 AM

ABO!!!!

ladyingray on March 14, 2012 at 10:08 AM

The fact that Rmoney is using democrat sleazy tactics against fellow republicans is very telling and revealing. Especially when he comes in 3rd and not even 2nd!

mozalf on March 14, 2012 at 10:07 AM

It’s not over for Romney. He still could hit 1144. I think there’s a good chance he will. But if he does, he will do so without my vote in the primary.

gryphon202 on March 14, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Well, respectfully, you and I looked at that video of Romney completely differently. He looked to be a guy who was pandering too much.

Respectfully, I’m never lived anywhere but the South and I didn’t see “pandering” at all. I saw someone who obviously isn’t from the South acknowledging that with humor while at the same time sending the message that he was happy to be campaigning among Southerners. I guarantee you that if he hadn’t employed such humor then the concern trolls would have criticized him for not making an effort to “relate.” Newsflash for you: Acknowledging your surroundings and engaging the local populous is not “pandering.”

But you need to appreciate, no matter who the GOP candidate is, the MSM is going to work against him, and they will exaggerate his chief weakness (e.g. Santorum as a religious wacko, Romney as out-of-touch panderer). And they won’t be picking on Obama. As I said, the one positive about Romney was that I trusted he wouldn’t be one of those foot in mouth guys. And now I see that’s not the case.

shannon76 on March 14, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Well, which is it? Romney is “gaffe-tastic” or is it that the Lefty media simply portrays him that way, just as they will any of the GOP candidates. You can’t blame Romney for the biased way that the media covers him while acknowledging that all the candidates will get the same treatment. The problem is not Romney’s “gaffes” (real or imagined) but rather the bias of the media.

cicerone on March 14, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Rixon on March 14, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Dante’s a Herr. Doktor Ron Gerbils supporter.
Herr Doktor Ron Gerbils ain’t a conservative.
He IS a friend of :Don Black, Alex Jones, David Duke, the IHR, and 9/11 truthers everywhere.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 14, 2012 at 10:09 AM

The people touting Willard this time because he’s “moderate” are many of the same people who voted for Obama because they thought he was “moderate.”

See how bad things can happen when you vote for a “moderate?”

This bunch includes columnist David Brooks of The New York Times, who supports Willard now but who voted for Obama four years ago. Yet he wants you to believe that Willard is the cure for Obama.

Moderates these days tend to be independents who don’t have well-focused political opinions, or country-club Republicans.

Emperor Norton on March 14, 2012 at 10:10 AM

With all the built in advantages romneycare has this cycle, to be coming in third place in two important primaries this late should be eye opening to even you.

Danielvito on March 14, 2012 at 9:57 AM

The reason you are seeing this push for Santorum to get out of the race now, is the palpable fear that if Santorum wins too much, we will be forced to a brokered convention. I think that Romney would win at any brokered convention.

The problem is if Romney DOES win at a brokered convention, a narrative will be created that the Establishment picked our candidate for us undemocratically. If Romney loses the election, the Republican party bosses’ credibility (and that of their supporters) is going to be even more damaged. They want to avoid this at all costs.

If you are really secure in Romney’s ability to hit that magic number of 1144, then the question is moot anyway. The fear among his supporters that he may not do that does not speak well for Romney’s electoral abilities.

gryphon202 on March 14, 2012 at 10:02 AM

I pretty much agree with this.

Doomberg on March 14, 2012 at 10:10 AM

The pledged/unpledged issue hasn’t been a factor in my lifetime. If the delegate counts are close enough to warrant a brokered convention, it could be. I’m just itching for someone to tell me that it’s a done deal and Romney has this wrapped up. I love it when Rombots sound desperate.

gryphon202

Well then here ya go. Before yesterday Romney had to win 25% of the southern delegates, done so far. He has to win over 50% of the remaining delegates in the west and Northeast, very doable. Then so long as he gets 40% in the midwest, he gets to 1144. For Santorum to win? Gingrich has to drop out and Santorum would have to win by big margins (Like Romney doesn’t pick up any delegates big margins) in a whole lot of states. Just look at last night. Santorum is so thrilled about winning 2 states, and Romney STILL expanded his lead.

Zaggs on March 14, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Drudge is so in the tank for Romney.
He can’t admit that Santorum has momentum.

Romney is weakening.

balkanmom on March 14, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Romney connects OK. The problem is that he alone among the GOP candidates is being held to a nearly impossible standard, mostly due to Obama Derangement Syndrome.

matthew8787 on March 14, 2012 at 10:02 AM

W. at least came across as somewhat genuine and likeable on the stump.

Right Mover on March 14, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Yup. Romney still comes off as a cardboard cut-out of a candidate, looks good in photos but he’s not someone who comes off as having any warmth or depth.

I think he suffers from the same over-handling that sunk Bob Dole. Dole was so likable and funny in interviews after he lost the election. There is a danger in being too cautious and measured.

There is also a danger in trying to pass off a weather vane as a conservative, but that’s a whole ‘nother argument.

Fallon on March 14, 2012 at 10:12 AM

As someone who enjoys using self-deprecating humor? No. Rather have someone who makes fun of themselves than someone who is whining about how unfair everything is.

Zaggs on March 14, 2012 at 10:05 AM

The challenge with Romney is that, like Gore and Kerry, he comes from a background where his instinct in communicating with people is less developed. And that’s not his fault. It isn’t even all that important to me. If he can do a great job and govern as a conservative, then I’d be all in. Cicerone can call it “anti-Romney paranoia” all she wants, but the as governor of Massachusetts he governed in a way I’m not comfortable with. And instead of calling people paranoid, cicerone would be better off trying to convince people that Romney would listen to his newly found conservative instincts and NOT his moderate-liberal ones.

shannon76 on March 14, 2012 at 10:12 AM

And if you think this passes as a legitimate response, I’m obviously wasting my time.

lawya on March 14, 2012 at 10:07 AM

The quick and legitimate response is that you’re wrong. You don’t have any evidence to suggest that the Left is more afraid of Santorum. There is, however, ample evidence to the contrary. Michigan is a prime example.

cicerone on March 14, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Status Quo Candidate A is only millimeters apart from Status Quo Candidate B

Dante on March 14, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Two conservatives, one less so than the other, mean the end of America as we’ve known it? And SCOAMF Obama isn’t and you prefer him?

Rixon on March 14, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Neither are conservative.

Dante on March 14, 2012 at 10:00 AM

.
Then write-in “Ron Paul” in November.

listens2glenn on March 14, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Newt may drop out but that will depend on his funding. I don’t see him doing it because his media nemesis is demanding he do so. He knows the game they’re playing.

RepubChica on March 14, 2012 at 9:35 AM

I agree, but sadly, it comes down to money. Newt might have no choice if his money runs out. My fear is that he appears to be making this too personal about Romney and even if he stays in, that perception hurts him. *sigh* I’m torn. I want him to keep going, but I don’t want that to work to Santorum’s advantage.

totherightofthem on March 14, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Look, Santy lost his last race in PA by almost 20 points. In a general, I’m not sure he can really count on some sort of favorite son status. Republicans haven’t won PA in a long time.

As far as believing that he’s more electable? You’re welcome to your opinion, but I think you’re dead wrong. A lot of the stuff he has said that paints him as a hard-right evangelical culture warrior aren’t going to play well with moderates and independents, and you can bet they will be a focus of the Obama campaign against him. Add to that the fact he’s weak organizationally, failing to make the VA and DC ballot, as well as those in some Ohio districts, and I doubt it’s really even competitive.

changer1701 on March 14, 2012 at 9:42 AM

You’ve said precisely what many so-cons refuse to grasp. Santy does not and will not appeal to moderate Repubs, Indies and conservative Dems. Not only is his religious/cultural dogma not in step with the prevailing issues of the day, but his dismal organizational skills during the primaries will translate broadly to administrative and leadership weaknesses on the economy.

Newton Leroy has vision, but his past leadership problems have eclipsed his ability to perform better than Santy in the primaries. That said, Newton would still make a better Prez than Santy and Mitt, despite his detractors, is still the best chance we have of beating Obama in the general.

Slainte on March 14, 2012 at 10:13 AM

There all we’ve got that can be considered even remotely in that category.

No. Not at all.

Will I vote and VOCALLY SUPPORT whomever the nominee is? You bet your a$$.

Rixon on March 14, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Another party over principle “conservative”. God save us all from your type.

Dante on March 14, 2012 at 10:14 AM

The greatest problem for the Romney campaign: Mitt Romney.

The greatest problem for the Santorum campaign: Rick Santorum.

The greatest problem for the Gingrich campaign: Newt Gingrich.

Prevent defense and ‘not losing’ does not make you a winner.

Letting others set the agenda for you doesn’t make your case.

Believing that the message of streamlined government is a winner, isn’t.

None of these things are obstacles made wholly by others, but are problems within the men who are at the top of the ticket. To turn it around any of them can simply start to address the actual problem of the Nation being the size, scope, and power of the US federal government as destroying our personal liberty by eating up our responsibilities at a cost to society and individuals, plus the Nation as a whole.

Do that and deprive the MFM of setting the tone by refusing to be drawn into their pre-made traps and point out what the MFM is doing by trying to do that.

Stick the guns, support the guns, and ask for lots of ammo and then extra help on dismantling this behemoth.

These guys each have a problem in the mirror.

The cluebat is being used but they are impervious to it.

I will vote against Obama.

Give me someone who is at least trainable and understands the problem and I will vote for them.

That is not a high standard in my book.

Any of them can turn it around and demonstrate they get the problem.

So far, none have.

ajacksonian on March 14, 2012 at 10:14 AM

If your point is that Santorum is more electable and is more troubling to the Left than Romney then I feel that I should go easy on you. It’s not your fault that this is all going completely over your head. Nobody was cheering louder last night than ObaMao and his crew.

cicerone on March 14, 2012 at 9:54 AM

LOL. At what point have I asserted that “Santorum is more troubling to the Left than Romney”? Reading is hard.

lawya on March 14, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Any of them can turn it around and demonstrate they get the problem.

So far, none have.

ajacksonian on March 14, 2012 at 10:14 AM

I haven’t heard a candidate talk about the constitution in a single stump speech or debate yet. That saddens me deeply.

gryphon202 on March 14, 2012 at 10:15 AM

The troops rally around a candidate, as of yet not named, and all of the oppo research and money spent by Obama on atacking the Fantastic Four is wasted.
Fallon on March 14, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Right, Team Obama (and the Democrats in general) don’t already have files upon files to use on every event remotely possible Republican in the country who might be nominated in such a move.

And the troops will flock in droves to rally around Jeb Bush when he comes out of the backroom deals. You think that R voters are divided now, what would he do to the process. And yes, with a combination of party power players and those who might think losing to Obama this time sets up their run in 2016 this is very much a possible outcome. Hell, Obama has been running against Bush for 4 years, his people wouldn’t even have to change the teleprompter scripts much.

Betenoire on March 14, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Rixon on March 14, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Dante’s a Herr. Doktor Ron Gerbils supporter.
Herr Doktor Ron Gerbils ain’t a conservative.
He IS a friend of :Don Black, Alex Jones, David Duke, the IHR, and 9/11 truthers everywhere.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 14, 2012 at 10:09 AM

.
Your ‘German’ typing is suspiciously “good”.

Hmmmm . . . . . . I’m watching you . . . . . .

listens2glenn on March 14, 2012 at 10:16 AM

I think he suffers from the same over-handling that sunk Bob Dole. Dole was so likable and funny in interviews after he lost the election.

Fallon on March 14, 2012 at 10:12 AM

I’m not so sure about this. Romney was like this in 2008 too, and this was one of the reasons I didn’t support him in that race.

I think there’s some peripheral evidence that an unscripted Romney would not come across as likeable or funny, but that’s an argument for another thread.

Doomberg on March 14, 2012 at 10:16 AM

quote should be:

The quick and legitimate response is that you’re wrong. You don’t have any evidence to suggest that the Left is more afraid of Santorum. There is, however, ample evidence to the contrary. Michigan is a prime example.

cicerone on March 14, 2012 at 10:12 AM

lawya on March 14, 2012 at 10:17 AM

And instead of calling people paranoid, cicerone would be better off trying to convince people that Romney would listen to his newly found conservative instincts and NOT his moderate-liberal ones.

shannon76 on March 14, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Though, I have no idea how cicerone would know how Romney would govern or why he would govern as a conservative. I’m going on Romney’s records as governor, and as the man who sired Romneycare and Obamacare. Cicerone can infer that with a conservative congress Romney would be under pressure to lead as a conservative President, but I’m just not convinced yet. I have no way of knowing for sure how he’d lead other than from his record.

shannon76 on March 14, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Your ‘German’ typing is suspiciously “good”.

Hmmmm . . . . . . I’m watching you . . . . . .

listens2glenn on March 14, 2012 at 10:16 AM

My family back in the Old Country spoke YIDDISH.
Neener.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 14, 2012 at 10:17 AM

And instead of calling people paranoid, cicerone would be better off trying to convince people that Romney would listen to his newly found conservative instincts and NOT his moderate-liberal ones.

shannon76 on March 14, 2012 at 10:12 AM

I reject the notion that Romney isn’t listening to his conservative instincts. That’s a popular narrative of his opponents to which I definitely do not suscribe nor is there a legitimate reason that I should. And my characterization of the type of folks who have repeatedly vilified Romney is appropriate to their level of derangement. I have to call ‘em like I see ‘em.

cicerone on March 14, 2012 at 10:17 AM

The quick and legitimate response is that you’re wrong. You don’t have any evidence to suggest that the Left is more afraid of Santorum. There is, however, ample evidence to the contrary. Michigan is a prime example.

cicerone on March 14, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Agreed. I live in MI and heard about the union push to vote Santorum in the primary first-hand. Where we disagree is that I think the left fears Gingrich. (As do the Republican Establishment types). I do not think they seriously fear Romney or Santorum.

totherightofthem on March 14, 2012 at 10:18 AM

I have to agree that the comparison is rather shaky, but it does lead me to wonder if many voters feel the same way I do, and that it’s Romney’s record that is his biggest problem? His supporters try to gloss it over, and I just don’t think it’s working. I know it’s not working on me.

gryphon202 on March 14, 2012 at 9:57 AM

I honestly don’t think it has anything to do with his record. I was here in ’08, and nobody had much of a problem with it then. People understood he was governing in a deep blue state, which is far different than doing so in, say, Idaho, and also seemed to value his private sector experience.

changer1701 on March 14, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Yep, because they’re scared shitless of the one candidate who has zero credibility on the single most important issue of this election season. You know, the guy who almost certainly possesses the all-time worst votes to dollars spent ratio?

RS is far from the ideal candidate, but it never ceases to amaze how blind so many in the GOP can be.

lawya on March 14, 2012 at 9:50 AM

You are absolutely incorrect. What happens to Santorum when the USSC knocks down Obamacare in June? Then Santorum has nothing but his evangelical social policies, and he will be lucky to carry 5 states.

Conversely, Romney is well-positioned on health care regardless of how the Supremes rule. That is the point. Romney has a broader economic platform, can still ride the fever of voter anger on Obamacare (though it will be lessened if determined to be constitutional), and cannot be marginalized of being “indifferent” to health care for the uninsured.

Santorum is hurt regardless of how the Supremes rule. If upheld, the fever of the electorate will dissipate, especially among independents, and Obama will be vindicated. If knocked down, the issue is gone. Either way, Santorum is a loser.

matthew8787 on March 14, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Mitt Romney has no conservative instincts. He’s not a conservative. He’s selling us a bill of goods. And this midwest voter isn’t buying.

gryphon202 on March 14, 2012 at 10:21 AM

This bunch includes columnist David Brooks of The New York Times, who supports Willard now but who voted for Obama four years ago. Yet he wants you to believe that Willard is the cure for Obama.

Brooks will vote for Obama again.

Right Mover on March 14, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Two man race?

I guess Romney should pull out since he came in 3rd in the base states.

faraway on March 14, 2012 at 10:21 AM

I honestly don’t think it has anything to do with his record. I was here in ’08, and nobody had much of a problem with it then. People understood he was governing in a deep blue state, which is far different than doing so in, say, Idaho, and also seemed to value his private sector experience.

changer1701 on March 14, 2012 at 10:20 AM

You and I will continue to disagree on that salient point, especially since it is because of his record that I will not be voting for him in the primaries.

gryphon202 on March 14, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Cicerone can call it “anti-Romney paranoia” all she wants, but the as governor of Massachusetts he governed in a way I’m not comfortable with. And instead of calling people paranoid, cicerone would be better off trying to convince people that Romney would listen to his newly found conservative instincts and NOT his moderate-liberal ones.

shannon76

Then instead of relying on half quotes just be honest that you don’t want someone to govern who isn’t consulting the bible on every choice. its hillarious that the same people who complain about Obama acting like a king, expected Romney to rule as a king in deep blue Massachusetts. Sure he didn’t start off uber conservative. But alot of what he gets flack for were supreme court decisions. But according to the social cons he was supposed to ignore those decisions. So you want a guy who ignored his state supreme court?
Or you can vote for Santorum who’s views on states rights must pass a bible test first.

Zaggs on March 14, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Maybe the reason self described Progressive Mitt Romney doesn’t think Obama is a radical is because of his family and their connections and friendships.

His dad seems to be pretty chummy with Saul Alinsky.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/photo-exclusive-when-george-romney-met-saul-alins?s=mobile

Maybe that’s why MATT Romney thinks Obama is “great” (like he said in Hawaii this week).

PappyD61 on March 14, 2012 at 10:22 AM

A few things bother me. Perhaps someone could help me with the answers. First on the list is how is Santorum seen as the true conservative with his record in government? Second, why was the turnout so miserably low in both the southern contests, while the turnout was quite high in Ohio? Third, how can the people say by 50% in the exit polls that Romney is the strongest candidate to defeat Obama, and then turn around and vote for someone else?

claudius on March 14, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Look, Santy lost his last race in PA by almost 20 points. In a general, I’m not sure he can really count on some sort of favorite son status. Republicans haven’t won PA in a long time.

changer1701 on March 14, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Not that they are that comparable, but Abraham Lincoln lost various elections eight times. In 1858, he for U.S. Senate in Illinois and lost. In 1860, he was elected president of the United States.

I’m not a Santorum supporter (at this time, I don’t like anybody very much) but it is possible that he could win the presidency after losing his state. It’s been done before…

Fallon on March 14, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Romney fears Newt’s 60 day plan.

Newt will fight Obama during the 60 days before the convention, and he will be seen as the leader of the party.

Romney will be quiet as usual. Or he and his fellow RINOs will attack conservatives.

faraway on March 14, 2012 at 10:27 AM

I think there’s some peripheral evidence that an unscripted Romney would not come across as likeable or funny, but that’s an argument for another thread.

Doomberg on March 14, 2012 at 10:16 AM

He’s even less likable and funny off script? Yikes.

Fallon on March 14, 2012 at 10:31 AM

the fat white wall tire aka Newt, the bitter sore loser and Woody need to get out of the way

Mitt Romney is our nominee

nparga23 on March 14, 2012 at 10:32 AM

You’ve said precisely what many so-cons refuse to grasp. Santy does not and will not appeal to moderate Repubs, Indies and conservative Dems. Not only is his religious/cultural dogma not in step with the prevailing issues of the day, but his dismal organizational skills during the primaries will translate broadly to administrative and leadership weaknesses on the economy.

I will be a little more explicit. Santorum has no money, no organization, no infrastructure, no ground game, no message, no discipline, no executive experience, no crossover appeal, and is terrifying to the middle of the electorate.

People suggest that Santo can stage a “comeback,” like Abe Lincoln or Dick Nixon. Of course he MIGHT. But is this a likelihood?

Can we afford to roll the dice with a long-shot like Santorum when we have 50-50 or better odds with Romney? Do we really take this chance with the future of the nation, including the Supreme Court, at stake?

matthew8787 on March 14, 2012 at 10:33 AM

We disagree! Romneycare only win in three general election runs was against a no name democrat that was the state treasurer at the time Shannon O’Brian. She was such a bad candidate her career in politics was done after that race. With that romneycare barely got 49% of the vote.

We’re talking Massachusetts here. You have to know that a Republican running there faces a a very steep climb.

Santorium did lose by 17points in pa. in his re-election run in 2008. However, he won two previous statewide races in that important state. Also, won many times in congressional races. Current polling shows obama and santorium in a deadheat in pa..

You were making the argument that he’d take PA…his landslide loss in his last campaign suggests that’s far from a foregone conclusion.

Romneycare, by any objective meter is not a good candidate. He doesn’t connect w/average people. His recent comments about grits, I have nascar owners as friends, my wife drives two cadilacs show how out of touch he is.

That’d be fine, if we were choosing people for our bowling team. I don’t need to “connect” with the guy or gal I think would do the best job in office, but maybe that’s just me.

I’m sure to appease his followers they could find a job for him in a santorium or dark horse candidates administration (my choice palin).

With all the built in advantages romneycare has this cycle, to be coming in third place in two important primaries this late should be eye opening to even you.

Danielvito on March 14, 2012 at 9:57 AM

It is eye opening, but not in the way you describe.

changer1701 on March 14, 2012 at 10:36 AM

I will be a little more explicit. Santorum has no money, no organization, no infrastructure, no ground game, no message, no discipline, no executive experience, no crossover appeal, and is terrifying to the middle of the electorate.

People suggest that Santo can stage a “comeback,” like Abe Lincoln or Dick Nixon. Of course he MIGHT. But is this a likelihood?
matthew8787 on March 14, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Hmmm? They said the same about Ronald Reagan. I like those odds better.

mozalf on March 14, 2012 at 10:36 AM

listens2glenn on March 14, 2012 at 10:16 AM

My family back in the Old Country spoke YIDDISH.
Neener.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 14, 2012 at 10:17 AM

.
But can you ‘type’ Yiddish? : )

listens2glenn on March 14, 2012 at 10:38 AM

First on the list is how is Santorum seen as the true conservative with his record in government?

You’re going have to better define “true conservative.” People who throw this comment out against Santorum (i.e. his record in government) act as if having a voting record makes one ideologically impure. The fact of the matter is that unless you pull an Obama and vote present for any contentious legislation (like the one allowing doctors to kill babies who survived partial birth abortions) then you are going have votes on the record that are not necessarily what you stand for when running as a candidate.

how can the people say by 50% in the exit polls that Romney is the strongest candidate to defeat Obama, and then turn around and vote for someone else?

Easy. I like Rick Santorum because of his social values. I also recognize that there are a lot of idiots out there who recoil in horror whenever social issues come up. Santorum has taken a lot of unfair criticism from Romney supporters for simply being a good Christian and that kind of hatred disgusts me to no end. Nevertheless, because these idiots exist, Romney is more likely to appeal to those who are anti-social issues.

Happy Nomad on March 14, 2012 at 10:40 AM

we have 50-50 or better odds with Romney

It’s only in your head.

The only thing Willard has going for him is that he looks presidential. As in, from central casting. People have a vague image of him, and when asked if he’d make a good president, they say yes because he looks the part–-like Hugh Beaumont was a very convincing Ward Cleaver.

Now, let’s imagine that someone else from New England was running for President–like Maine Senator Olympia Snowe. Too liberal? All you have to do is give the patented Willard campaign reply: “Well, you don’t want Obama to get another four years, do you?”

Under that theory, no Republican is ever too liberal because, well, you don’t want Obama to get another four years, do you? Is the other Maine Senator, Susan Collins too liberal? I heard that her American Conservative Union rating is around 50, same as Willard’s. What about retired Senator Arlen Specter? Too liberal? Well, you don’t want Obama to get another four years, do you?

Emperor Norton on March 14, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Then write-in “Ron Paul” in November.

listens2glenn on March 14, 2012 at 10:13 AM

That’s certainly an option. So is voting for the Libertarian Party’s candidate, and perhaps the Constitution Party’s candidate. But the fact remains that neither Santorum nor Romney is a conservative, and there are other choices available.

Dante on March 14, 2012 at 10:40 AM

I guess Romney should pull out since he came in 3rd in the base states

ANY Republican will win the states that Santo and Newt have carried: Georgia, Alabama, SC, Mississippi, Kansas, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee.

That is entirely the point. Romney alone will play on BLUE turf, which is why the Dems are terrified of him. Romney puts into play NJ, MI, WI, MN, IA, CT, ME, WA, OH, PA, FL, among many others. We won’t carry all of these states, but we’ll win enough of them to get to 270, and we’ll make Obama go broke defending ALL of them.

In the 2010 midterms, which 2 races were Obama-Biden most desperate, borderline frantic, to win? The governorships of Ohio and Florida. Romney won both of these states. Santorum didn’t even compete in FL. Telling.

matthew8787 on March 14, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Hmmm? They said the same about Ronald Reagan. I like those odds better.

mozalf on March 14, 2012 at 10:36 AM

you’re an idiot…..Reagan was a two term governor from California and ran for president in 1976 and 1980…

you Woody drones and other serial dating GOP primary dummies who rejected Bachmann, Perry, Herman Stain, and T-Paw, use that Reagan comparison as a defensive tool, which holds no water for Woody or Newt

get lost idiot

nparga23 on March 14, 2012 at 10:42 AM

The fact of the matter is that unless you pull an Obama and vote present for any contentious legislation (like the one allowing doctors to kill babies who survived partial birth abortions) then you are going have votes on the record that are not necessarily what you stand for when running as a candidate.

Happy Nomad on March 14, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Unless you actually stick with your principles such as Ron Paul does. There isn’t a single vote of his that goes against the Constitution or his limited government principles.

So no, it is not “the fact of the matter”.

But if you want to cast your lot with people who say one thing and do another, go right ahead.

Dante on March 14, 2012 at 10:42 AM

That’s certainly an option. So is voting for the Libertarian Party’s candidate, and perhaps the Constitution Party’s candidate. But the fact remains that neither Santorum nor Romney is a conservative, and there are other choices available.

Dante on March 14, 2012 at 10:40 AM

The argument is most conservative of the bunch. We know the weaknesses and that’s why the pushback against Rmoney and for Santorum is gaining momentum. Rmoney may have been more “conservative” than McCain in 2008, but that sure isn’t the case in 2012.

mozalf on March 14, 2012 at 10:45 AM

They said the same about Ronald Reagan. I like those odds better.

mozalf on March 14, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Reagan was a governor. Reagan did not have the burden of a 20-year congressional voting record that will be used to destroy Santorum – just as it destroyed Goldwater, McCain, and Dole.

The nation does not elect GOP senators to the presidency. The last one was Warren Harding in 1920. Not such good odds. When we run a governor (Reagan, Bush 43) or vp (Nixon, Bush 41), we win.

matthew8787 on March 14, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Unless you actually stick with your principles such as Ron Paul does. There isn’t a single vote of his that goes against the Constitution or his limited government principles.

Except all the times Ron Paul voted to accept earmarks.

Emperor Norton on March 14, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Reagan was a governor. Reagan did not have the burden of a 20-year congressional voting record that will be used to destroy Santorum – just as it destroyed Goldwater, McCain, and Dole.

The nation does not elect GOP senators to the presidency. The last one was Warren Harding in 1920. Not such good odds. When we run a governor (Reagan, Bush 43) or vp (Nixon, Bush 41), we win.

matthew8787 on March 14, 2012 at 10:46 AM

yeah, but he was supposed to scare of moderates and independents. Plus he was TOO extreme compared to the rich and electable George H W Bush. I still see a lot of parallels now and then…

mozalf on March 14, 2012 at 10:48 AM

You and I will continue to disagree on that salient point, especially since it is because of his record that I will not be voting for him in the primaries.

gryphon202 on March 14, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Well, let me explain why I say that. It’s my sense that many conservatives want a rock star, like Palin in ’08 (and Obama, for that matter). Mitt isn’t…he’s a retread from a bad year for the GOP. There’s no novelty to his candidacy, which many feel is just the Establishment picking our guy again. People see McCain 2.0, and they’re saying not this time.

I think that is what is driving the animus towards him, more than anything else. His record-for Massachusetts-really isn’t that bad, and his private sector experience is head and shoulders above the rest. There’s a reason he was sought out to fix the Olympics. The man understands the economy and how to create jobs and wealth, which ought to be the most important issue. Instead, though, there’s been this mad scramble among the base to lurch toward various Not Romney’s at various points, despite the wholes in their resume (or lack of one).

changer1701 on March 14, 2012 at 10:48 AM

How can Obama win in November when he’s lost the indy vote?

His approval rating equals his base.

fossten on March 14, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Have you checked Romneys numbers with Indys lately?

liberal4life on March 14, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Ugh. *holes, not wholes.

changer1701 on March 14, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Reagan was a governor. Reagan did not have the burden of a 20-year congressional voting record that will be used to destroy Santorum – just as it destroyed Goldwater, McCain, and Dole.

The nation does not elect GOP senators to the presidency. The last one was Warren Harding in 1920. Not such good odds. When we run a governor (Reagan, Bush 43) or vp (Nixon, Bush 41), we win.

matthew8787 on March 14, 2012 at 10:46 AM

If Santorum’s 20-year voting record can be used to destroy him, I don’t understand why Rombots are so cavalier about Mitt’s gubernatorial record. That seems to me to be equally as important to voters in making their decision.

gryphon202 on March 14, 2012 at 10:50 AM

The nation does not elect GOP senators to the presidency. The last one was Warren Harding in 1920.

The nation does not elect blacks to the Presidency, either. Oh, wait. . .

Emperor Norton on March 14, 2012 at 10:51 AM

I’m so sick of this primary. All it has done is make Republicans (again) look like childish inbreds fighting among themselves. Santorum said last something like “people are talking about numbers and delegates and such, but I won last night.” Well yes Rick, numbers count. And when everyone steps back and removes the EMOTION behind their opinions they will see that there is no way that Santorum can win the delegate race. Period. Done. Who cares about winning states where Romney didn’t spend any money? Who cares about Ron Paul other than rabid willfully ignorant lemmings? And Newt is a brilliant historian but his ego is destroying our solidarity.

Like it or not, Romney will be the nominee. Accept it and rally the troops. Sometimes you have to eat your broccoli. Sometimes you have to get on the treadmill. Voting for Romney will not hurt, nor will it kill you. But not voting for him in November will kill America.

Mitt, Newt and Rick CAN beat Obama and either would be far better than Obama. But it won’t happen if wittle feewings get hurt and people stay home on election day. Envision an Obama second term. Seriously, think about it. No more campaigning. Nothing to lose. You think he’s a power grabbing radical now? Imagine him next year. Embrace that horror. Then shut the hell up and step in line soldier. We do NOT have a choice right now.

TheLoudTalker on March 14, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Not that they are that comparable, but Abraham Lincoln lost various elections eight times. In 1858, he for U.S. Senate in Illinois and lost. In 1860, he was elected president of the United States.

I’m not a Santorum supporter (at this time, I don’t like anybody very much) but it is possible that he could win the presidency after losing his state. It’s been done before…

Fallon on March 14, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Sure. In fact, I doubt he’d count on a PA win as part of his path to the White House. All I was pointing out was that it’s far from a foregone conclusion that he’d win there, which was the crux of danielvito’s argument that he’s more electable in the general.

changer1701 on March 14, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Dante on March 14, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Ronulan thinks that Israel’s nukes are more of a concern than the possibility of Iran getting them. He said that Israel was causing concentration-camp like conditions in Gaza and considered Israel’s use against a heavily-armed ambush aboard that one flotilla to be excessive.

David Duke is not a ‘constitutional conservative’, nor are Don Black, the IHR, or 9/11 truthers-yet ALL support Ron Paul.

If it’s proper to judge Obama by the company he keeps/has kept-and it is-then the same yardstick need to me applied to Paul and his association.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 14, 2012 at 10:53 AM

I think that is what is driving the animus towards him, more than anything else. His record-for Massachusetts-really isn’t that bad, and his private sector experience is head and shoulders above the rest. There’s a reason he was sought out to fix the Olympics. The man understands the economy and how to create jobs and wealth, which ought to be the most important issue. Instead, though, there’s been this mad scramble among the base to lurch toward various Not Romney’s at various points, despite the wholes in their resume (or lack of one).

changer1701 on March 14, 2012 at 10:48 AM

I don’t care what is driving the animus towards him. I don’t care who else is voting how and where. Romney’s record in Massachusetts is the reason he is not getting my vote. Period. His subsequent gaffes on the 2012 campaign trail further reinforce my view of him that he is willing to say or do anything to get elected and is failing miserably in that regard, but I’m not voting for a Northeastern panderer. Period. End of story.

gryphon202 on March 14, 2012 at 10:54 AM

This is ridiculous. Romney won more delegates last night. Why are we still talking about Newt and Santorum? They are losers. They lost. They cannot win. It’s over.

CABE on March 14, 2012 at 10:54 AM

the fat white wall tire aka Newt, the bitter sore loser and Woody need to get out of the way

Mitt Romney is our nominee

nparga23 on March 14, 2012 at 10:32 AM

And to think how you were all upset about the “name-calling” (Willard) last night.

Bitter Clinger on March 14, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Reagan was a governor. Reagan did not have the burden of a 20-year congressional voting record that will be used to destroy Santorum – just as it destroyed Goldwater, McCain, and Dole.

The nation does not elect GOP senators to the presidency. The last one was Warren Harding in 1920. Not such good odds. When we run a governor (Reagan, Bush 43) or vp (Nixon, Bush 41), we win.

matthew8787 on March 14, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Well said. I wish Santorum voters voted with their brains, instead of petty reasons.

It’s quite simple:

1. Since Eisenhower, almost every Republican that has won the presidency has been a Governor. That includes Nixon. That includes Reagan. That includes Bush.

2. When Republicans nominate a Congressman or Senator, they lose. See Dole, McCain, etc…

3. Romney appeals to independents. Santorum makes independents ill when he is forced to talk about social issues.

4. Romney does better in polls against Obama. And unlike Santorum, during his surges, has always shown an ability to win.

5. Santorum is not Ronald Reagan.

6. Romney is great at fundraising, and has great organization.

7. Santorum has little money and less organization. And for all of the evangelicals, conservatives, working class, and poor Republicans that love him, no one actually goes out and gives him money.

8. Romney looks and sounds presidential.

9. Santorum does not come off presidential. He comes off as whiny and prone to gaffes.

10. Despite what Rush Limbaugh, and the conversvative media says, Mitt Romney is not this closet liberal, and Rick Santorum is not this uber-conservative.

11. In a tough election, Rick SAntorum has proven he cannot win with his message. As an incumbent, he lost, and lost badly.

12. Rick Santorum has no executive experience, and has little to no fiscal experience.

13. Mitt Romney has both executive experience, and extensive fiscal experience.

milcus on March 14, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Romney was asked if a bear was chasing him would he run into a church or climb a tree.
He said, I would do both.

liberal4life on March 14, 2012 at 10:57 AM

1. If Newt had not been in the debates and made Romney look weak early on Rick would not have made it at the get go.

2. Rick wiggles his head to much, sign that he is not sure of himself and immatureity.

3. Rick will be easy pickings by the msm and Obama in debates as Rick will take the bait on non issuses on religion and such and not focus on the price of gas, the EPA, the union thug part, and will not say out loud and in the clear that Obama and the Democrats are a clear and present danger to our freedom and the Constitution. He is to used to the hands across the isle go along of the RNC world.

4. The Ron Paul’s will vote for Newt for Pres. they will not vote for Romney at all and only a few of them for Rick thus a boost to Newt being on the ticket.

5. Looks like both Romney and Rick will be culled at the convention for a better Pres. choice and Newt will be the VP and agree to not run for President later.

6. Romney is a no go at all.

7. Rick could make it by agreeing in writing that he will not go off the rails on social issues and loose the race because he wants to debate those issues with the MSM ready to use that to get Obama elected.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on March 14, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Well said. I wish Santorum voters voted with their brains, instead of petty reasons.

milcus on March 14, 2012 at 10:56 AM

That you think Romneycare is a “petty” reason not to vote for him says more about you than it says about the ABR crowd, Rombot.

gryphon202 on March 14, 2012 at 10:58 AM

I’m so sick of this primary. All it has done is make Republicans (again) look like childish inbreds fighting among themselves.

Those are great Romney/Axelrod talking points. We have 3 great candidates. Enjoy.

Like it or not, Romney will be the nominee. Accept it and rally the troops.

TheLoudTalker on March 14, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Nice Romney talking points. Romney will only be the nominee if he gets to 1144. Period. Otherwise it will be someone else.

And yes, we will all rally around the nominee.

And yes, the campaign can wait until everyone returns from vacation and goes back to school in September.

faraway on March 14, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Fundraising letter from Obama/Biden (emphasis mine):

Dear John Doe:

Tonight, some combination of Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum will give victory speeches after the next round of Republican primaries.

All you really need to know: According to a new poll, if the general election were held today, we would lose to Mitt Romney.

Now, many other polls put the President on top, but all point to the same reality: We’re looking at a race that will be tighter than you think. And the other side has groups ready to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to tear down President Obama.

I know that March doesn’t feel as urgent as September or October will. But we’re running a grassroots campaign — that means we’re building this organization one donation at a time. It’s not the easy way to do it, but it’s the right way. And we know we’ll be up against someone with a virtually unlimited supply of cash to attack us and President Obama.

If you can’t imagine a scenario in which Mitt Romney defeats Barack Obama, just look at the numbers. It’s a real possibility, and we have to start acting like it.

If you’ve been waiting to give, now is the time to do it. Donate $3 or more today…

Buy Danish on March 14, 2012 at 10:59 AM

This is ridiculous. Romney won more delegates last night. Why are we still talking about Newt and Santorum? They are losers. They lost. They cannot win. It’s over.

CABE on March 14, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Ohh. Crapping yourself over the thought of a brokered convention now? Does Romney have 1144 yet, Champ? What’s what? “No,” you say? Heh.

gryphon202 on March 14, 2012 at 10:59 AM

I don’t care what is driving the animus towards him. I don’t care who else is voting how and where. Romney’s record in Massachusetts is the reason he is not getting my vote. Period. His subsequent gaffes on the 2012 campaign trail further reinforce my view of him that he is willing to say or do anything to get elected and is failing miserably in that regard, but I’m not voting for a Northeastern panderer. Period. End of story.

gryphon202 on March 14, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Chill out. I wasn’t talking about you specifically…we were discussing in general whether it was really his record that was the issue for most people.

changer1701 on March 14, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Since Eisenhower, almost every Republican that has won the presidency has been a Governor. That includes Nixon. That includes Reagan. That includes Bush.

Before Eisenhower, Republican governors were nominated, too, and were often losers:

Tom Dewey (1948)
Tom Dewey (1944)
Alf Landon (1936)
Charles Evans Hughes (1916)

And never forget: past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Emperor Norton on March 14, 2012 at 11:01 AM

This is ridiculous. Romney won more delegates last night. Why are we still talking about Newt and Santorum? They are losers. They lost. They cannot win. It’s over.

CABE on March 14, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Romney came in 3rd in base states. 3rd. Romney will not get to 1144. He has already lost.

The 2nd round of playoffs will begin in June.

faraway on March 14, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Romney came in 3rd in base states. 3rd. Romney will not get to 1144. He has already lost.

The 2nd round of playoffs will begin in June.

faraway on March 14, 2012 at 11:02 AM

While I do not believe that AL and MS mean Romney is a sure loser at this point, I also believe that it’s enough to prove to my satisfaction that he’s not a sure winner yet, either.

gryphon202 on March 14, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Texas will go to Newt big.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on March 14, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Rick is running against the entire Republican back-stabbing establishment (ask Sarah) When they get through putting him into their punditry ringer and loose the Coulters, Christies, and Krauthammers against him, he’ll be just so much scrambled eggs in a chicken coop.

Romney won’t survive the first debate with Obama’s “you did all that stuff too -before I did Mit, I learned it from watching you., You rich men think you can buy anything -just picking on a poor black man and taking womens rights away”

Polls the next day show Romney at 12% among Republicans – the GOP asks him to withdraw for Sarah Palin and the tea party….heh..

Don L on March 14, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Since Eisenhower, almost every Republican that has won the presidency has been a Governor. That includes Nixon. That includes Reagan. That includes Bush.

The other thing that’s wrong with your reckless assertion is that, contrary to what you say, Nixon was never a governor. Congressman, Senator, Vice-President, yes. Governor, no.

Emperor Norton on March 14, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Sorry, Mittbots. From the NW Corner of MS, speaking for the rest of the state: PFFFT!

kingsjester on March 14, 2012 at 11:08 AM

And never forget: past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Emperor Norton on March 14, 2012 at 11:01 AM

another idiot on hotgas…you had to go back pre- 1960 John F. Kennedy….when someone points out GOP governors NOT senators like McCain and Dole win the presidency, they mean since 1960 because JFK and Obummer were the only ones to win the WH as a senator.

In 2008, voters had no choice. McCain and Obummer were senators.

When you responded to the poster, you didn’t correct him saying Nixon was NEVER a governor

get lost, USEFUL IDIOT

nparga23 on March 14, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Romney came in 3rd in base states. 3rd. Romney will not get to 1144. He has already lost.

The 2nd round of playoffs will begin in June.

faraway on March 14, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Ohh. Crapping yourself over the thought of a brokered convention now? Does Romney have 1144 yet, Champ? What’s what? “No,” you say? Heh.

gryphon202 on March 14, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Honestly, I could care less. Romney will win the nomination. Your religious home boy Santorum, and his faithful sidekick Newt need to drop out. When McCain and Romney were running against each other, Romney had the sense to drop out. It was smart, and respectful. Newt, and Santorum are neither.

CABE on March 14, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Question to the mittbots, what happens if Santorium wins more states than romneycare yet romneycare has more delegates. Currently, romneycare has won 15, santorium 10 and gingrich 2). Further, what happens if santorium gets more total votes (Pa. & texas still to vote)than romneycare, again w/romneycare getting more delegates.

So saying romneycare getting the most delegates doesn’t cut it, other factors like total vote, states won should also be factored.

Finally, you can even make a case that who is the hottest candidate the last few months. In short, romneycare is getting further away each day that passes to the nomination than closer.

Danielvito on March 14, 2012 at 11:09 AM

The whole narrative of a big Santorum win is absurd and entirely poll and media driven.

First no one expected Romney to do anything in two states in the deep, deep South. Then some polls show some strength, and people say “Wow, Romney’s doing OK even there.” Then when he doesn’t outperform those poll results but makes an entirely respectable showing, it’s “OMG, what a loss.”

My entire life I have watched northern liberals who would put their houses on the market within 10 minutes of their neighborhood turning 20% black, who would never dream of sending their kids to classes that were 20% black, scream about the racism and bigotry of the terrible, terrible South, which has come so far in the past 50 years. And Jay Cost is talking on NRO about how far the South has come in voting for Catholics like Santorum and Gingrich. I am careful about throwing around the word “bigotry.”

But I can’t help but think that some of anti-Romney vote in the South is anti-Mormon. I keep on thinking of that interview John McCain did with his elderly Mom where, when the discussion turned to Romney, she blurted out “he’s a Mormon.” Yeah, I don’t know if she’s from Alabama, but that sentiment IS out there, and it’s only fair to assume that it’s greater among cohorts where the nature of a candidate’s religious belief is an essential qualifier.

bobs1196 on March 14, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Romney came in 3rd in base states. 3rd. Romney will not get to 1144. He has already lost.

The 2nd round of playoffs will begin in June.

faraway on March 14, 2012 at 11:02 AM

wishful thinking from another delusional nitwit….join Newt and Woody on the sabotage the Romney express, you sore losers

nparga23 on March 14, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Emperor Norton on March 14, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Man, you and gryphon202 are good. You guys rock and I’m glad you’re on our side!

mozalf on March 14, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Are people forgetting that Romney won the night?

Romney 41
Santorum 35
Gingrich 24
Paul 1

CABE on March 14, 2012 at 11:12 AM

HAPPY PI DAY! One of the earliest known approximations of pi date from around 1900 BC, found in the Egyptian Rhind Papyrus. Though the ancient Egyptians didn’t know the value of pi, they seem to have used an approximation during construction of the pyramids at Giza, Abusir, and Medium.

Mutnodjmet on March 14, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Honestly, I could care less. Romney will win the nomination. Your religious home boy Santorum, and his faithful sidekick Newt need to drop out. When McCain and Romney were running against each other, Romney had the sense to drop out. It was smart, and respectful. Newt, and Santorum are neither.

CABE on March 14, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Romney could very well win the nomination. But when Matt says that Obama is “great,” I can’t help but think there’s still plenty of room between now and the convention for Mitt to piss it away. Regardless, if Romney does win the nomination, he will do so without my vote in the primary.

gryphon202 on March 14, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Question to the mittbots, what happens if Santorium wins more states than romneycare yet romneycare has more delegates. Currently, romneycare has won 15, santorium 10 and gingrich 2). Further, what happens if santorium gets more total votes (Pa. & texas still to vote)than romneycare, again w/romneycare getting more delegates.

So saying romneycare getting the most delegates doesn’t cut it, other factors like total vote, states won should also be factored.

Finally, you can even make a case that who is the hottest candidate the last few months. In short, romneycare is getting further away each day that passes to the nomination than closer.

Danielvito on March 14, 2012 at 11:09 AM

another nitwit on hotgas….what IF? rules are the GOP candidate who get 1144 delegates gets the nomination….

so you want to change the rules , sore loser ?

nparga23 on March 14, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Are people forgetting that Romney won the night?

Romney 41
Santorum 35
Gingrich 24
Paul 1

CABE on March 14, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Then you must not be worried about a brokered convention. I bet you sleep quite well at night. This means you can quit trying to convince us non-believers now. ;-)

gryphon202 on March 14, 2012 at 11:15 AM

If Santorum’s 20-year voting record can be used to destroy him, I don’t understand why Rombots are so cavalier about Mitt’s gubernatorial record. That seems to me to be equally as important to voters in making their decision.

gryphon202 on March 14, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Of course Romney’s gubernatorial record will be fair game. But the record will reveal only executive decisions over a 4 year period.

The difference between executive decisions and the infinite votes that a congressman and senator make is HUGE. A member of Congress makes literally thousands of votes on every matter of public policy – defense, economic policy, judges, social issues — including all sorts of procedural votes that are used to distort their record and destroy presidential candidates.

“I was for it before I was against it,” which is exactly what was on display with Santorum in the last debate. His congressional voting record will be used to destroy him, compounded by the fact that he has no executive experience.

Moreover, Romney, like Reagan, can run AGAINST Washington DC. Santorum cannot. Running against DC is huge with independents and swing voters. Even OBAMA is trying to run against DC. Nominating Santorum would sacrifice that issue against Obama.

matthew8787 on March 14, 2012 at 11:17 AM

nparga23 on March 14, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Azzwart, your lover romneycare CAN’T GET TO 1144, NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU LICK HIS HERSEY SQUIRTS!

DO YOU FREAKIN GET THAT, ROMNEYCARE CAN’T GET TO 1144, TO YOU HAVE ENOUGH BRAIN MATTER TO UNDERSTAND THAT.

God, you mittbot’s are hopeless!

Danielvito on March 14, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5