Open thread: Illinois; Update: Exit poll added; Update: Fox News calls it for Romney; Video: Romney speech added

posted at 7:37 pm on March 20, 2012 by Allahpundit

Polls close at 8 p.m. ET. Hey, remember six days ago when this was going to be Santorum’s last, best chance to steal a major “Romney state” away from Romney (in the midwest, no less) and make a real race of this thing? According to the pollsters, that chance has come and gone. I wonder why.

As much as I enjoy the all-night election threads, looks like we’re destined for this one to be called promptly at eight. Exit polls and video of the speeches will follow below but no cliffhangers tonight, alas. Ask not for whom the bell tolls, says Nate Silver — it tolls for Sweater Vest:

In fact, Mr. Santorum now looks like he’ll win no more than a third of the 54 delegates that are at stake on Tuesday. Illinois awards its delegates entirely by Congressional district — two to four at a time. If Mr. Santorum is losing the state by 10 or more points, he is unlikely to win any of the 12 Congressional districts that are divided between Chicago and its suburbs. And he has no chance at all of winning the 13th Congressional District, which is more favorable to him but where he failed to get enough signatures to get his delegates on the ballot…

Say that Mr. Romney wins the 16th Congressional District, which includes some areas on the far outskirts of the Chicago metro area, but Mr. Romney holds the other four. That would make the delegate count for the night Romney 40, Santorum 14, and put Mr. Romney ahead by almost 300 delegates — 561 to 267 — in the national total.

That isn’t a close race, nor is it one that it is likely to require a brokered convention to resolve. If that is the count after Illinois votes, Mr. Romney would require only 46 percent of the remaining delegates to clinch a majority (he was won about 55 percent so far), and only 39 percent to clinch a plurality.

Per Jeff Greenfield, there may be one last path left to deny Romney the nomination. Change the rules:

If Romney has not secured the nomination by the time the delegates convene in Tampa, Fla., at the end of August, the prospects for a genuine floor fight are greater than you might imagine. The reason is that delegates who are bound or pledged to a candidate are only obligated to follow his wishes when it comes to voting for a nominee. And in most contentious conventions, it is a fight over the rules that has effectively determined the nominee…

Suppose the challenge to Romney is broader, and that, like the Kennedy forces did in 1980, the opposition offers a rule to free all the delegates from their commitments on the ground that the primaries have demonstrated Romney’s weakness. Here, we could see a number of delegates bound to Romney vote to liberate themselves from the obligation to vote for him. (Again, we should note that delegates bound to vote for Romney as the nominee don’t have to side with him on other votes that stand to determine his fate.) Sure, most delegates would probably stand by the former governor on grounds of loyalty, fairness or fear of reprisals. But if Romney has not garnered a large enough share of delegates by convention time, it would not take many defections to make every delegate a free agent, and thus turn the whole convention upside down.

Maybe, but don’t forget that there are 123 superdelegates in the mix too, the vast majority of which are likely to break for Mitt in the interest of avoiding a floor fight if he shows up in Tampa on the cusp of 1,144. If he rolls out a pledge from, say, 100 superdelegates to back him and that puts him over the top, how likely is it that the other delegates will refuse him a nomination that he’s essentially clinched?

Here’s CNN’s Illinois election page for real-time results. You know the drill by now: Metro areas (i.e. Cook County and its surroundings) belong to Team Mitt, rural areas belong to Team Sweater. Whoever overperforms in the other’s stronghold will have a good night. Updates to come below. Exit question one: Can Romney hit 50 percent? If so, I wonder if he’ll use his victory speech to formally call on Santorum and Gingrich to drop out. If not, expect the media narrative tomorrow to look something like this. Exit question two: How much longer can Newt hold on? He already has as much campaign debt as cash on hand and the donations are drying up.

Update: Michele Bachmann: “At this point, we would be better off if we could unify around a candidate, whoever that candidate may be.”

Update: Preliminary exit polls already looking good for Romney:

Preliminary exit poll results find that six in 10 Illinois voters see Romney as the candidate with the best chance of beating Barack Obama, a bit better than his average across exit polls this year. More strikingly, Romney also leads Rick Santorum, albeit narrowly, as the candidate who “best understands the problems of average Americans.”

It’s only the second state, of six where the question’s been asked, in which Romney’s been poised to beat his rivals on empathy. The other was Florida.

Update: Here’s the exit poll promptly at 8 p.m. No call yet, but assuming the exits are right, Romney wins by 10 points with 45 percent of the vote. Back with highlights in a moment.

Update: Demographics have been destiny so far in the primaries and Illinois is no different. Scroll through the exits and you’ll see lots of familiar trends: Santorum wins voters with no college education while Romney wins college grads and up; Santorum wins lower-income voters while Romney wins the rich; Santorum wins the “very conservative” while Romney cleans up with centrists and independents; Santorum dominates among evangelicals while Romney dominates among non-evangelicals; Santorum crushes Romney among those who say it’s most important that the candidate’s a “true conservative” while Romney crushes Santorum on electability. Two interesting outlier data points, though — and bear in mind that the exit numbers will change slightly over the course of the evening as more data comes in. First, Mitt Romney, the tea party choice?

And second, Mitt Romney, the Catholic choice — in a landslide:

And then there’s this. When I first looked at the exits, it broke 48/40 for Mitt. As CNN’s refined the data, it’s shrunk:

That supports the conventional wisdom on Newt dropping out. Santorum closes the gap, but not enough to win. And Romney actually picks up a few votes, which puts him a tiny bit closer to winning a majority of delegates.

Update: At 8:33, the FNC decision desk says it’s all over. Now we wait for the speeches and to see how close Romney gets to 50 percent.

Update: Just got a blast e-mail from Team Newt. No gracious concession tonight:

“To defeat Barack Obama, Republicans can’t nominate a candidate who relies on outspending his opponents 7-1. Instead, we need a nominee who offers powerful solutions that hold the president accountable for his failures. Over the past few weeks, my $2.50 gas plan has shown how America could have cheaper gas, more jobs and greater national security while putting the White House on the defense over their anti-American energy policies. This is the type of leadership I can offer as the nominee, and this campaign will spend between now and when the delegates vote in Tampa relentlessly taking the fight to President Obama to make this case.”

Update: Here’s your tweet of the day from Newt, who’s dead last in Illinois as I write this — behind even Ron Paul:

Low turnout tonight. A nominee that depresses turnout won’t beat @BarackObama. Still time for a conservative. Join us

Update: Don’t look now, but with 53 percent reporting, not only is Romney outperforming the exit polls, he’s tantalizingly close to 50 percent. Right now he leads Santorum 48/34.

Update: Here’s Romney’s speech; read the corresponding NBC analysis for data points on why this might, might, might finally be proof that Republicans are grudgingly coming around to him. With the possible exception of Florida, this is the biggest win of his campaign. Next up: Wisconsin.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


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 8 9 10 11

Back up your assertion about southeasterners having an anti-Mormon bias, or STFU, Mittbot.

JannyMae on March 21, 2012 at 2:11 AM

Awwww, someone’s in a cranky mood and can’t face reality. A religious subset of Southeasterners have an anti-Mormon bias. You know perfectly well that this is a true fact, so stop pretending it’s not. Here’s one notorious example, from Pastor Jeffers who introduced Rick Perry at the Values Voters Summit:

As evangelical Christians, we understand that Mormonism isn’t Christianity and thus the difference between someone who is good and moral like Mitt Romney and a true follower of Christ [like Perry],” Jeffress told reporters after Perry’s speech. “I think the decision for conservative evangelical Christians right now is going to be, do we prefer somebody who is truly a believer in Jesus Christ or somebody who is a good moral person but is a member of a cult? And it’s not politically correct to say but it is true: Mormonism is a cult.”

Here’s Evangelical Warren Cole Smith writing for Patheos:

“I believe a candidate who either by intent or effect promotes a false and dangerous religion is unfit to serve. Mitt Romney has said it is not his intent to promote Mormonism. Yet there can be little doubt that the effect of his candidacy — whether or not this is his intent — will be to promote Mormonism”

This prejudice is not confined entirely to the South but it’s obviously most significant in the so-called “Bible Belt”.

Buy Danish on March 21, 2012 at 7:47 AM

Buy Danish on March 21, 2012 at 7:47 AM

Cult:

1. Someone else’s religion.

MJBrutus on March 21, 2012 at 7:54 AM

MJBrutus on March 21, 2012 at 7:06 AM

mitt is just as bad for this country as obama in the long run. conservatives know it. severely.

renalin on March 21, 2012 at 7:55 AM

Right. His entire campaign has been about how he is going to regulate morality (Catholic morality, at that) from the seat of power in Washington DC and impose that on the people of this country. Rather than getting government off our backs and out of our way, he is going to get on our backs and kick our bedroom doors open.

He raises not a single point about the things that are really serious problems right now. He doesn’t argue from the standpoint of a conservative Republican. It is obvious from his “role of government” beliefs that he is arguing from the standpoint of a conservative Democrat.

He believes that the federal government has the obligation to enforce HIS moral values on the states and the people. That just isn’t in the Constitution. He’s a nut.

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 3:03 AM

STOP.THE.LYING.THIS WHOLE POST IS COMPLETELY UNTRUE AND NOBODY ON THIS FORUM SHOULD READ ANY POST FROM SOMEONE AS DISHONEST AS YOU. YOUR NO DIFFERENT THAN MEDIA MATTERS OR THINK PROGRESS.

KickandSwimMom on March 21, 2012 at 7:56 AM

I hate to say it, and I know he is a not adored by conservatives, but Mike Huckabee would be a great pick for Romney.

He would bring that human touch to the campaign that Romney so lacks. As a southern baptist, he reassures those evangelicals concerned about Romneys Mormonism. He has charisma, is an excellent campaigner and debater and would lift the ticket. He’s very likable.

Let him focus on Missouri, North Carolina, Florida, Virginia and some of the big midwestern states. Let Romney focus on the west and some of the other midwestern states.

It makes sense.

joepub on March 21, 2012 at 7:59 AM

I hate to say it, and I know he is a not adored by conservatives, but Mike Huckabee would be a great pick for Romney.
joepub on March 21, 2012 at 7:59 AM

Yep. I write his name in on Patrick’s polls when he asks who you’d like to see as veep.

Buy Danish on March 21, 2012 at 8:04 AM

renalin on March 21, 2012 at 7:55 AM

Is Paul Ryan “bad for this country” and indistinguishable from PBHO’s as well? I ask because Mitt’s agenda is remarkably similar to Ryan’s.

MJBrutus on March 21, 2012 at 8:04 AM

mitt is just as bad for this country as obama in the long run. conservatives know it. severely.
renalin on March 21, 2012 at 7:55 AM

You know who’s severely bad for the country? People like you who spread ludicrously false memes that Obama and Romney are practically ideological twins. Obama loves this of course as it humanizes him and makes him appear less dangerous than he is.

++

OT: Could Santorum’s speech been any more depressing? It’s his tone of voice, this look of despair on his face – that he’s about to break into tears. Can’t stand to watch him anymore.

Buy Danish on March 21, 2012 at 8:08 AM

[Santorum] has no chance at all of winning the 13th Congressional District, which is more favorable to him but where he failed to get enough signatures to get his delegates on the ballot…

Dos that mean that Santorum’s name wasn’t on the ballot?
Or, could people still vote for Santorum but he just wouldn’t get any delegates?

I’m assuming the former, but please correct me if I am wrong.

And if I’m right, that means that Not only did Romney fail to gain a majority of the votes state-wide, but his leading competitor wasn’t even on the ballot in all districts! Had Santorum been on the ballot in all districts, Romney’s percentage of the total vote would likely have been even lower.

Romney is uninspiring. Voter turnout was low. More than 50% of his own party doesn’t want him to be the nominee. If he ends up winning the nomination, he’ll be a very week contender against Obama.

A brokered convention, with an inspiring pair of P/VP nominees is probably the best way to go.

ITguy on March 21, 2012 at 8:10 AM

Buy Danish on March 21, 2012 at 8:08 AM

is romney not the father of obamacare? i rest my case.

renalin on March 21, 2012 at 8:11 AM

I hate to say it, and I know he is a not adored by conservatives, but Mike Huckabee would be a great pick for Romney.

joepub on March 21, 2012 at 7:59 AM

As a Romney supporter, I absolutely HATED Huckabee 4 years ago. Since that time, I’ve seen his FNC show plenty of times, and I definitely recognize his impressive on-camera skills, quick-wittedness and talent for humor.

When I first heard the suggestion that Mitt pick Huckabee, I thought it was a genius idea. I still think it is… for many of the same reasons you describe.

Basically, I’m all about doing whatever it takes to beat Obama. Whoever would help Romney the most, I say pick them! No unqualified, inexperienced, unprepared Sarah Palin-types, though, please.

bluegill on March 21, 2012 at 8:12 AM

i voted for romney in 2008. this is 2012, his time has passed. worse than that, he’s going to be the perfect foil for obamas OWS 2012 campaign.

mitt has loser written all over him. don’t want to be associated. no thanks. muchas gracias, pero no.

renalin on March 21, 2012 at 8:14 AM

This prejudice is not confined entirely to the South but it’s obviously most significant in the so-called “Bible Belt”.
Buy Danish on March 21, 2012 at 7:47 AM

Those in the “Bible Thumpin Belt” are way more ABO than your avg voter- even for a candidate Romney- Richard HAD to win convincingly in FL OH MI IL- maybe he gets PA – but he has no chance in General if he can’t win the all important battleground states. and for any descendants of brother Swaggart or Jim and Tammy Fae to be judge and jury for religious acceptance won’t sell either- Besides, imagine the media response if a President Romney were to even say the word – Mormon? Impeachment talk would begin immediately.

FlaMurph on March 21, 2012 at 8:15 AM

bluegill on March 21, 2012 at 8:12 AM

I’m with ya. Absolutely no love for the Huckster here. But I’m all about winning. Personally, I don’t think that Huck would be much of an asset, but if Mitt should go that way, so be it.

And yeah, WRT Simple Sarah types, we don’t need another Felix Unger/Oscar Madison comedy tour.

MJBrutus on March 21, 2012 at 8:16 AM

bluegill on March 21, 2012 at 8:12 AM

hey fish, lets compare size of rallies for romneys vp candidate to Sarah’s.

how much you gonna bet. waiting.

renalin on March 21, 2012 at 8:17 AM

I hate to say it, and I know he is a not adored by conservatives, but Mike Huckabee would be a great pick for Romney.

joepub on March 21, 2012 at 7:59 AM

Yep. I write his name in on Patrick’s polls when he asks who you’d like to see as veep.

Buy Danish on March 21, 2012 at 8:04 AM

If Romney wins the nomination outright, I agree.

If we reach a brokered convention, where Romney gets a plurality but not a marjority, of the delegate votes, then it may be necessary to pick a nominee that is not one of the four currently running. In that scenario, I think Huckabee stands a very real chance of winning a majority vote of the delegates.

And I think that a Huckabee/Palin ticket would kick Obama/Biden butt.

ITguy on March 21, 2012 at 8:17 AM

mitt is just as bad for this country as obama in the long run. conservatives know it. severely.

renalin on March 21, 2012 at 7:55 AM

Santorum is the savior of the country.

Big government nanny-state Republicans FTW!

Good Lt on March 21, 2012 at 8:19 AM

Buy Danish on March 21, 2012 at 7:47 AM

Call it a hunch but I’d bet that once the general campaign gets into full swing and Obama postures himself as a uber Christian, even the anti-Mormon folks will hop on board. If for nothing else to make the claim that the conservative christians were responsible for a Romney win.

Bradky on March 21, 2012 at 8:22 AM

week weak contender

Goodness gracious, I need some coffee!

ITguy on March 21, 2012 at 8:23 AM

renalin on March 21, 2012 at 8:14 AM

Ladies and gentlemen please allow me to introduce Member number 9 of the HA 35….

Bradky on March 21, 2012 at 8:23 AM

A brokered convention, with an inspiring pair of P/VP nominees is probably the best way to go.

ITguy on March 21, 2012 at 8:10 AM

Romney’s got his fingers wrapped tight around this primary process it’s not going to be an easy thing unwrapping his fingers from around it GRIN.

Dr Evil on March 21, 2012 at 8:26 AM

hey fish, lets compare size of rallies for romneys vp candidate to Sarah’s.

renalin on March 21, 2012 at 8:17 AM

Let’s not and say we did. Sarah Palin’s time was 2008. She is not running this year. You may have thought she did a great job in 2008, while others think she may (despite her benefits) have actually been a net negative on the ticket. In the long run, I think she was a bad choice, especially in terms of the after-effects her candidacy had on the Republican brand in the eyes of non-partisan voters.

Please quit pitting her and her cult of personality against this year’s pick, whoever it turns out to be. I would hope that Sarah Palin and her supporters are on board with the national campaign to defeat Obama. We need to remember what really matters. Sarah Palin would do best to avoid becoming the center of attention again.

bluegill on March 21, 2012 at 8:26 AM

And I think that a Huckabee/Palin ticket would kick Obama/Biden butt.

ITguy on March 21, 2012 at 8:17 AM

I think ou’re deluding yourself.

Good Lt on March 21, 2012 at 8:28 AM

A brokered convention, with an inspiring pair of P/VP nominees is probably the best way to go.

ITguy on March 21, 2012 at 8:10 AM

There will be no brokered convention or new nominee. Watch and see.

rich801 on March 21, 2012 at 8:30 AM

Sarah Palin would do best to avoid becoming the center of attention again.

bluegill on March 21, 2012 at 8:26 AM

How odd that Mitt bots and Obots state the same exact thing consistently.

Mitt needs the TEA party and Sarah Palin is a TEA party favorite. The only people I know who snub the TEA party are Obots.

Dr Evil on March 21, 2012 at 8:30 AM

And I think that a Huckabee/Palin ticket would kick Obama/Biden butt.

ITguy on March 21, 2012 at 8:17 AM

For the HA 35 absolutely. For the other 131,999, 965 voters in the country not so much.

Put them on dancing with the stars or amazing race but not on any political ticket.

Bradky on March 21, 2012 at 8:31 AM

There will be no brokered convention or new nominee. Watch and see.

rich801 on March 21, 2012 at 8:30 AM

Can we get the national weather report projections next/?

Dr Evil on March 21, 2012 at 8:31 AM

OT: Could Santorum’s speech been any more depressing? It’s his tone of voice, this look of despair on his face – that he’s about to break into tears. Can’t stand to watch him anymore.

Buy Danish on March 21, 2012 at 8:08 AM

There was an article linked, yesterday, about another term for Obama not being the end of liberty.

When I looked through the comments, of twenty total, five took shots at Romney. It makes me wonder how these people can call Romney supporters “Mittbots”.

On the speech issue, I only saw about three or four minutes of Romney’s speech. I thought it was pretty good. (But, let’s not put too much on the speeches; after all, we all know how many swooned for Odumbo’s hollow words.)

RedCrow on March 21, 2012 at 8:33 AM

How odd that Mitt bots and Obots state the same exact thing consistently.

Um, Obots want Sarah Palin to be involved. She’s the perfect foil and distraction from Obama.

Good Lt on March 21, 2012 at 8:34 AM

This prejudice is not confined entirely to the South but it’s obviously most significant in the so-called “Bible Belt”.

Buy Danish on March 21, 2012 at 7:47 AM

This “prejudice” is part of the Mitt Romney supporters imagination, as if “prejudice” is excluded in all other races except this one.
It tiresome to hear the whining…
How about this, since the advent of TV, no president has had any facial hair…that’s prejudice.
No president has been short…that’s prejudice
No Jewish, woman, gay, heavily tattooed, overweight, underweight, the list of “prejudice” is endless…
Every candidate who is not elected was not elected because of a “prejudice”, maybe they supported abortion, or didn’t…no one has been elected with an “ugly” wife, the conservatives think the liberal wife is ugly, and the opposite…more prejudice.
The fact is, prejudice only comes from the losers, the whiners, the ones who can’t face the fact that other factors besides religion comes into play with Mitt, he is arrogant, slimy, dishonest, spoiled, and that has nothing to do with him being a Mormon, in fact just the opposite. His moral code of ethics, ranging from supporting abortion, to using candidates clips out context, belies the his “faith” based convictions…his conviction is to make money, for his cronies to make money, and to gain and achieve power, at any cost, including turning his back on his faith.
Maybe the “prejudice” comes from him not living his faith, and denying it…faithful people respect other faithful people, at least those attempting…Mitt makes no attempt, but shows contempt to others faith.
Mitt has made this an ugly, personal, campaign, and that is why people don’t support him, not because of some made up myth about his religion…suck it up, he isn’t liked because of who he is, not who he prays to.

right2bright on March 21, 2012 at 8:34 AM

Update: Just got a blast e-mail from Team Newt. No gracious concession tonight:

“To defeat Barack Obama, Republicans can’t nominate a candidate who relies on outspending his opponents 7-1. Instead, we need a nominee who offers powerful solutions that hold the president accountable for his failures. Over the past few weeks, my $2.50 gas plan has shown how America could have cheaper gas, more jobs and greater national security while putting the White House on the defense over their anti-American energy policies. This is the type of leadership I can offer as the nominee, and this campaign will spend between now and when the delegates vote in Tampa relentlessly taking the fight to President Obama to make this case.”

Newt is the only candidate capable of defeating Obama and providing solid solutions to restore our country.

(Turnout for Illinois primary 24%, the lowest turnout for a presidential primary in the last 70 yrs.)

IndeCon on March 21, 2012 at 8:35 AM

Newt is the only candidate capable of defeating Obama and providing solid solutions to restore our country.

(Turnout for Illinois primary 24%, the lowest turnout for a presidential primary in the last 70 yrs.)

IndeCon on March 21, 2012 at 8:35 AM

If that were true he’d be doing better in the primaries, but he’s not now is he?

SauerKraut537 on March 21, 2012 at 8:35 AM

Buy Danish on March 21, 2012 at 8:08 AM

is romney not the father of obamacare? i rest my case.

renalin on March 21, 2012 at 8:11 AM

You and others have your fingers in your ears on this topic so I’m not going to waste my time restating facts again about the history of RomneyCare and how it’s vastly different from Obama’s program.

Those in the “Bible Thumpin Belt” are way more ABO than your avg voter- even for a candidate Romney- Richard HAD to win convincingly in FL OH MI IL- maybe he gets PA – but he has no chance in General if he can’t win the all important battleground states. and for any descendants of brother Swaggart or Jim and Tammy Fae to be judge and jury for religious acceptance won’t sell either- Besides, imagine the media response if a President Romney were to even say the word – Mormon? Impeachment talk would begin immediately.

FlaMurph on March 21, 2012 at 8:15 AM

First, your comments (referring to people in the Bible Belt as “Bible Thumpers” etc.) are not helpful. Second, I don’t have a clue what you mean by your impeachment comment.

Buy Danish on March 21, 2012 at 8:39 AM

And I would say to someone who wants government that enforces morality, that you can have that … at the state level. Engage at your state level and enact state laws that reflect your values. I have no problem with that. That is completely constitutional. What works for California is completely different than what works for Oklahoma and both states should be able to enact laws that reflect their culture.

We don’t need one party or the other gaining the seat of the federal government and attempting to dictate culture across the entire country from Washington DC. THAT is what makes federal politics so polarized. Conservatives are afraid the liberals are going to shove their values down our throats and liberals are afraid of the conservatives doing the same thing. They both need to knock it off at the federal level. Let the states reflect their local values in their laws and people can vote with their feet, if need be. There would be a place that anyone of any set of values should be able to live comfortably. States that make poor choices would see their political influence wane. States that make good choices would see their populations and economies grow, and their political influence will expand.

Look at the states that lost seats in Congress vs. the states that added seats. Those states lost or gained influence at the federal level. That is how it should be. The federal government should *reflect* our culture, not dictate it.

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 3:22 AM

This is absolutely correct. And well said. Social issues should, for the most part, have no place in presidential politics.

Syzygy on March 21, 2012 at 8:40 AM

Can we get the national weather report projections next/?

Dr Evil on March 21, 2012 at 8:31 AM

Spring now..Followed closely by summer..Giving way later by fall..LOL

rich801 on March 21, 2012 at 8:43 AM

OT: Could Santorum’s speech been any more depressing? It’s his tone of voice, this look of despair on his face – that he’s about to break into tears. Can’t stand to watch him anymore.
Buy Danish on March 21, 2012 at 8:08 AM

His wife looks even more stressed than he does- it’s not healthy to be put through the ringer at this point in the game.

FlaMurph on March 21, 2012 at 8:43 AM

right2bright on March 21, 2012 at 8:34 AM

Blah blah blah. I told you yesterday I’m not interested in conversing with you anymore after your unhinged “baby killer” comments. I should have cut you off a very long time ago. You’re a fool at best, a lying propagandist at worst, and your history of anti-Mormon bigotry is undeniable. So, just imagine I’m Cee Lo Green singing to you right now….

Buy Danish on March 21, 2012 at 8:47 AM

I’m not voting in the Presidential election. The RINO establishment can take their candidate and go straight to Hell.

jubalearly on March 21, 2012 at 8:51 AM

your history of anti-Mormon bigotry is undeniable. So, just imagine I’m Cee Lo Green singing to you right now….

Buy Danish on March 21, 2012 at 8:47 AM

I don’t care if you respond to me…you are a liar, as obvious by your whining that I am an “anti-Mormon” bigot, which you won’t find in any of my posts, except with your wild imagination.
Anti Joseph Smith, or others who took child brides…I have for years felt Mitt would have been a great VP or high ranking cabinet member, hardly an “anti-Mormon” stand to push for someone to be the second most powerful person in world…kind of makes you look foolish doesn’t it?
Your “prejudice” and “bigotry” card playing is tiresome, old…Mitt has gone off the deep end this election, he has lost his way, the seeking of power does that to people. A once proud and admirable man, has been reduced to a whining, sniveling, slimy political hack. And his supporters are following suit…pathetic.
I would normally demand you to pull up the “anti-Mormon” bigot quotes you claim to have read, but you won’t, you can’t, it’s just another one of your whining lies.
You can ignore me, I prefer that…but I won’t ignore your posts that are full of lies and distortion…hmmmm, and you are a Mitt supporter, it fits.

right2bright on March 21, 2012 at 8:56 AM

I’m not voting in the Presidential election. The RINO establishment can take their candidate and go straight to Hell.

jubalearly on March 21, 2012 at 8:51 AM

No complaining, then.

Good Lt on March 21, 2012 at 8:57 AM

(Turnout for Illinois primary 24%, the lowest turnout for a presidential primary in the last 70 yrs.)

IndeCon on March 21, 2012 at 8:35 AM

Romney got more votes in this year’s Illinois Primary than McCain got in 2008:

2012 Illinois Primary:
Romney 428,434
Santorum 321,079

2008 Illinois Primary:
John McCain 424,071

bluegill on March 21, 2012 at 9:00 AM

OT: Could Santorum’s speech been any more depressing? It’s his tone of voice, this look of despair on his face – that he’s about to break into tears. Can’t stand to watch him anymore.
Buy Danish on March 21, 2012 at 8:08 AM

I didn’t see any of the election night coverage, had a high school soccer game to go to, but it is interesting you see Santorum’s speech that way. It seems Bill Krystol of the Weekly Standard feels the same about Romney’s speech:

Watching Mitt Romney’s victory speech in Illinois didn’t reassure me about his chances against President Obama. (Watch it yourself to see if I’m being unfair.) Romney’s remarks consisted basically of the claim that the business of America is business, that he’s a businessman who understands business, and that we need “economic freedom” not for the sake of freedom but to allow business to fuel the economy. It’s true that Romney will have plenty of time to improve for the general election, if, as seems likely (but still not inevitable!), he wins the nomination. But if he sticks with this core message, we’d better hope Republicans and independents are really determined to get rid of Barack Obama.

Seems it pretty much boils down to political leanings; so I guess I’ll have to take your criticism of Santorum’s speech with a grain of salt after reading Krystol’s take on Romney’s speech. Lol.

KickandSwimMom on March 21, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Can we get the national weather report projections next/?

Dr Evil on March 21, 2012 at 8:31 AM

A local Chicago radio station was running weather quotes as political updates all yesterday. It’s hard to explain but it was pretty funny.

Fallon on March 21, 2012 at 9:02 AM

Blah blah blah. I told you yesterday I’m not interested in conversing with you anymore after your unhinged “baby killer” comments.

Buy Danish on March 21, 2012 at 8:47 AM

And, btw, supporting and defending abortion is being a “baby-killer”, especially in the light that Mitt is pretending that he never supported abortion…I guess the check from his family bank account to Planned Parenthood, and his defending Mass abortion laws and the rights of women to have abortion without control, and his appointing an abortion rights activist to his RomneyCare board is just a coincidence?
In lieu of his denying the obvious, I make the extreme point…thou protest too much?
Please don’t comment…support a man who supports abortion, mandates, Cap and Trade, global warming, bailouts, gov. takeover of business, and begs for money from lobbyists…I won’t call you a anti-conservative bigot…

right2bright on March 21, 2012 at 9:03 AM

bluegill on March 21, 2012 at 9:00 AM

You could also say that Mitt convinced 170,000 more people to go with him this time as compared to his 2008 total of 256,000.

Now that’s statistically significant

Bradky on March 21, 2012 at 9:04 AM

bluegill on March 21, 2012 at 8:26 AM

so i see you subscribe to the theory that even a can of tuna can beat obama.

we shall see.

renalin on March 21, 2012 at 9:06 AM

No complaining, then.

Good Lt on March 21, 2012 at 8:57 AM

I guess you don’t get it…that is the complaint, that there is no conservative candidate being supported, so we have every right to complain.
So you are saying if you don’t vote for someone you don’t support, you can’t complain about them? Huh???
A no vote protest, is still a statement, you don’t get that?

right2bright on March 21, 2012 at 9:07 AM

right2bright on March 21, 2012 at 9:07 AM

He’s saying that if you’re one of the folks who won’t vote for whomever the GOP nominates, then don’t complain if you get four more years of Obama. You’re part of the problem.

(And, please don’t give me the Romney = Obama spiel. I’ve seen it before, and don’t really care to argue about it.)

I’m none too keen about any of the GOP candidates. But, I’ll vote for the GOP nominee because they’ll be infinitely better than Odumbo.

RedCrow on March 21, 2012 at 9:12 AM

It seems Bill Krystol of the Weekly Standard feels the same about Romney’s speech:

Watching Mitt Romney’s victory speech in Illinois didn’t reassure me about his chances against President Obama. (Watch it yourself to see if I’m being unfair.) Romney’s remarks consisted basically of the claim that the business of America is business, that he’s a businessman who understands business, and that we need “economic freedom” not for the sake of freedom but to allow business to fuel the economy…

KickandSwimMom on March 21, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Add that to Mark Steyn’s take on a Mitt speech:

“‘I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that’s the America millions of Americans believe in. That’s the America I love.’

And, mix it with this peek behind the curtain:

“She was marvelous. They asked her tough questions and she did exactly what you’re supposed to do: she didn’t answer them,” Romney laughed

I’m starting to see a pattern of obfuscation, almost on par with Hope and Change. It seems the idea is to give the opposition nothing to target. Will it work? Or, will it continue to sound like empty rhetoric. We’ll see…

Fallon on March 21, 2012 at 9:15 AM

I’m considering Pensacola if I ever have money again.

Lightswitch on March 20, 2012 at 11:55 PM

currently talking to CinC House …. if she would like to move back there …
when I retire ….. or if she wants to stay in NC …..
she graduated college there (PCC) … and I went to Navy A school and several C schools there …. we both have a lot of friends there ….

conservative tarheel on March 21, 2012 at 9:23 AM

KickandSwimMom on March 21, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Kristol has been very down on Romney during this whole cycle…although he doesn’t seem to care for Santorum either. I think that Perry was his pick, and he’s been sour ever since that didn’t end well.

As far as Romney’s speech…well, hopefully you’ll get a chance to watch it, but I think it was far better than what Kristol describes. It was pretty damn good, actually. But then, as you say, these things depend on your perspective.

“‘I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that’s the America millions of Americans believe in. That’s the America I love.’
We’ll see…

Fallon on March 21, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Love Mark Steyn, but, come on…this joke is from a couple of months ago. Get some new material.

Priscilla on March 21, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Love Mark Steyn, but, come on… this joke is from a couple of months ago. Get some new material.

Priscilla on March 21, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Yup, months ago people noticed that Romney has a pattern of circular rhetoric. That was the point of linking Kristol’s comments from Romney’s speech last night with Steyn’s. And, the last, most revealing, quote was from Romney, himself.

Fallon on March 21, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Priscilla on March 21, 2012 at 9:25 AM

I thought it was good, too. He had a few stumbles with the teleprompter, but what politician doesn’t?

Does any smart person really put a lot of stock in politicians’ speeches? (It’s been proved over many years, now, that a politician can say whatever they want in a speech (especially if they’re democrat), and nothing will be “held against them”.)

RedCrow on March 21, 2012 at 9:31 AM

RedCrow on March 21, 2012 at 9:12 AM

I know what he is saying, but it doesn’t make sense…you and he state that if you don’t vote for a candidate you don’t agree with, than you can’t complain if the other gets elected…but if you vote for the candidate that you don’t agree with and he doesn’t get elected you can complain? Or if he gets elected you helped elect someone you don’t agree with…
Not voting for someone is an acceptable way of protest.
If you had a crooked mayor, and a crooked politician running for his office, who do you vote for? Or you don’t vote, and the low voter turnout is an indication that he is not supported.
Just because someone shoves something in your face, doesn’t mean you have to accept it, or you don’t get to complain about it…not voting is a “complaint”, it is a viable option, when the options are not sufficient to warrant your vote..

right2bright on March 21, 2012 at 9:33 AM

I’m none too keen about any of the GOP candidates. But, I’ll vote for the GOP nominee because they’ll be infinitely better than Odumbo.

RedCrow on March 21, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Just to clarify, I agree with you on this part (except I happen to think all are very qualified, but Mitt is not the conservative I want)…but not voting does not eliminate you from the discussion or critique.

right2bright on March 21, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Mitt’s response about if you want free stuff, vote for the other guy is good. but i want more of that, but with an edge. say it like you are shanking someone and then twisting the knife, then break it off. that’s what i want from mittens from now till Nov.

GhoulAid on March 21, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Once again, Romney is the only GOP candidate that has any chance at inviting disaffected dems and independents.

Correct. In the fall campaign, it will be far easier to get conservatives to vote for Romney than independents for Santorum. It’s really that simple.

As to comparing Romney with other “moderates” who lost, they are drawing the wrong comparisons.

Goldwater, Dole, McCain — what they all had in common was that they were SENATORS and had no executive experience.

Since Eisenhower, when the GOP has nominated a senator, they have LOST every time. When the GOP has nominated a governor (Reagan, Bush 43) or vice president (Nixon, Bush 41), they have WON.

Romney was a governor, has executive experience, and no congressional voting record to distort and defeat him with.

David Axelrod would destroy Rick Santorum with his own congressional voting record in 72 hours.

matthew8787 on March 21, 2012 at 9:42 AM

right2bright on March 21, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Okay, then I guess we look at it differently.

I’ve never voted for a candidate with whom I agreed on everything. I’ve always voted for the lesser (or least) of the evils that were presented to me. I’ve often voted for “A”, because I thought “B” was a much worse option.

Don’t vote. Write-in Santorum on your ballot. It’s your right.

Also, feel free to complain as much as you like during Obama’s second term. It doesn’t bother me, I was explaining Good Lt.’s comment, ’cause I thought you didn’t get it.

I know that democrats are gearing-up their voting machines. (I’d bet, though it could never be proved, that Obama will get 1.5 points in the election from dead people, cartoon characters, illegal aliens, and those voting multiple times.)

You should definitely stand by your principles.

RedCrow on March 21, 2012 at 9:44 AM

right2bright on March 21, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Thanks. I understand where you’re coming from.

RedCrow on March 21, 2012 at 9:45 AM

matthew8787 on March 21, 2012 at 9:42 AM

(Lol–I should preface my statement by saying that I supported Romney in MI (mainly) because I thought he’d get more independent votes.)

I think that’s a great point that you made.

RedCrow on March 21, 2012 at 9:48 AM

What about Susana Martinez? She is conservative, from a battle ground state, a female (to take away the meme form Barry/Axelrod that GOP is engaged in WoW) and Hispanic.

galtani on March 21, 2012 at 1:35 AM
Glad you mentioned her. I think she’s the “dark horse.” I think she would be a genius pick.

GOPRanknFile on March 21, 2012 at 1:39 AM

I mentioned Martinez earlier in the evening.

Martinez has yet another attribute: she preempts and neutralizes any move by Obama to dump Biden for Hillary – immediately after the GOP convention.

matthew8787 on March 21, 2012 at 9:49 AM

I see the naysayers are out in force. Let me sum up their position as I see it.

“We’ve already lost, and it doesn’t matter because Obama and Romney are the same anyway.”

To those folks I say, try a little diesel in your gasoline automobile. It comes out of a pump and is used to power motor vehicles. What could go wrong?

claudius on March 21, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Mitt isn’t going to win without “us.” Why don’t you man up and quit treating people like crap?

JannyMae on March 21, 2012 at 12:40 AM

because they believe they can either brow beat us into supporting mittens
or
because the THINK everyone is going to get behind the nominee anyway so lets have some fun ….

conservative tarheel on March 21, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Mitt’s response about if you want free stuff, vote for the other guy is good. but i want more of that, but with an edge. say it like you are shanking someone and then twisting the knife, then break it off. that’s what i want from mittens from now till Nov.

GhoulAid on March 21, 2012 at 9:40 AM

This is fine from Mitt, but he is not closing the sale with this comment. The point is this: if you would not brazenly demand at gunpoint that your neighbor solve every problem in your life, then you should not allow the government to do that for you.

Obama is an egalitarian demagogue: a person who promises you “free” goods and services stolen from the “sacrifice” of others.

It is nothing but theft, and it is past time to teach the American people this fact, or we will all be toast.

matthew8787 on March 21, 2012 at 9:55 AM

it tolls for Sweater Vest:

I know it doesn’t matter to most.. but Allah, I really hate that name.. it’s juvinille, and petty.

I like Rick Santorum, as a person, I like his socially conservative views. I liked his family, I thought his wife was graceful and charming. I found most of the sneers against him, small minded and petty, the taunts of schoolyard jerks who yell “fight fight” while staying ever so safely behind the crowd.

I’ve also seen things said by people on my side that made me whince.. going after Romney’s family?.. really guys? I ended up feeling sick about both camps ever getting any sense.

Last night, I promised myself, no chip on my shoulder, I’d just listen, and watch the speech. I usually just read transcripts.. I was surprised, Romney gave a good speech, hitting the right notes like Reagan would have. An optimistic speech, the happy warrior, taking the president on without being over the top. Something we conservatives have been asking for since he started.

Rick, as much as I like the man, has problems staying on message, difficult when the media won’t allow him to address anything else.. but some self inflicted.. I’ve talked with good people on both sides.. and I have to say mu biggest issue with Romney is Obamacare.. he has pledged to end it,.. that to me is vital. I’m greatly dependent on modern medicine to stay active.. I’m vulnerable to the systemn, and Obama’s bungling has put my family in a rough spot. It has to be repealed, or my wife, kids and I are screwed.

The speech, and speaking with reasonable people in the Romney camp, has allayed a lot of my concerns.. and Rick won’t have the time to correct the false narratives about him,.. (some spread by “friends” in the GOP, some by over zealous Romney fans).. Rick has been made into a strawman, as savagely unfair as that is..

I’m switching my support to Romney.. conditional on his keeping his pledge to end Obamacare.

As long as he makes that one of his primary tasks, I’ll support him. I suspect, more will reach the same conclusion. That doesn’t mean I reject Santorum, far from it, I’d like very much like he have some enfluence in a Romney administration..

I still consider most Santorum voters my friends, and will not join in the lets make stupid snarky jokes about blue collar Santorum voters gang. I never did that to Romney, I won’t with Rick.

Both are good men doing what they think is right for the country..

Something we all try to do in our own way,..

I’ll be there in the fall, and I hope all of us will be, our future depends on it.

mark81150 on March 21, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Mitt isn’t going to win without “us.” Why don’t you man up and quit treating people like crap?

JannyMae on March 21, 2012 at 12:40 AM
because they believe they can either brow beat us into supporting mittens
or
because the THINK everyone is going to get behind the nominee anyway so lets have some fun ….

conservative tarheel on March 21, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Primaries bring out the worst in competing camps. People on all sides say things they regret. Conflict gets personalized. Yes, some of the pro-Romney posters have gone way overboard, but I have also been subject to many vile comments from Dr Tesla and other pro-Santo posters — the vitriole goes both ways.

We will ALL need each other later.

matthew8787 on March 21, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Seems it pretty much boils down to political leanings; so I guess I’ll have to take your criticism of Santorum’s speech with a grain of salt after reading Krystol’s take on Romney’s speech. Lol.

KickandSwimMom on March 21, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Kristol isn’t depressed because Romney sounded like he was about to cry. In any case, Kristol was John McCain’s biggest booster during the nomination process when he could have supported Romney who was generally acknowledged to be the more conservative choice, so if he feels like crying right now I have no sympathy for him if he’s feeling blue.

Buy Danish on March 21, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Dos that mean that Santorum’s name wasn’t on the ballot?
Or, could people still vote for Santorum but he just wouldn’t get any delegates?

I’m assuming the former, but please correct me if I am wrong.

@ ITGuy:

You are wrong.

Illinois has a two-part primary. There is “beauty contest” vote for all of the presidential candidates, then there is voting for the actual delegates, who are also listed on the ballot. So you could have voted for Santorum regardless of whether or not he had fielded a slate of delegates in a particular congressional district, but if Santorum failed to get a minimal number of signatures in the district to enable him to field a slate of delegates, then he gets no delegates from that district even if he were to win the popular vote (which does not count towards delegates).

Romney simply crushed Santorum because he focused on jobs and the economy while Ricky spent his time on social issues. When you are out of work or the high cost of gasoline is cutting into your monthly budget, you tend to be more concerned about the economy than you are about social issues.

Old Fritz on March 21, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Old Fritz,
Thanks for the clarification.

ITguy on March 21, 2012 at 10:07 AM

mark81150 on March 21, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Message acknowledged. Thank you for sharing reasoning in depth.

There is a 50-50 or better chance that the Supremes will knock down Obamacare this summer.

This is another risk with Santorum: if this happy event occurs, then Santo has essentially nothing left to run on. It’s a huge risk for the GOP.

Romney, by contrast, is well-positioned on this issue regardless of how the Supremes rule: uphold, knock down, or punt.

matthew8787 on March 21, 2012 at 10:07 AM

bluegill on March 21, 2012 at 8:26
I don’t like ANY of the remaining candidates but to a point-I agree with you.
*ducks for incoming*

annoyinglittletwerp on March 21, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Kristol isn’t depressed because Romney sounded like he was about to cry. In any case, Kristol was John McCain’s biggest booster during the nomination process when he could have supported Romney who was generally acknowledged to be the more conservative choice, so if he feels like crying right now I have no sympathy for him if he’s feeling blue.

Buy Danish on March 21, 2012 at 10:02 AM

I’ve met Kristol. He’s very intelligent but he’s a snotty, elitist pain in the ass.

matthew8787 on March 21, 2012 at 10:10 AM

mark81150 on March 21, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Excellent.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 21, 2012 at 10:11 AM

I’ve met Kristol. He’s very intelligent but he’s a snotty, elitist pain in the ass.

matthew8787 on March 21, 2012 at 10:10 AM

I’ve met Michael Medved several times.
He’s bright-but a real schmuck otherwise.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 21, 2012 at 10:13 AM

jubalearly on March 21, 2012 at 8:51 AM

Not very smart-are you?
*I’m not a Mitt-bot*

annoyinglittletwerp on March 21, 2012 at 10:15 AM

I severely hope mittens picks the huckster as his vp …

that way the 2 guys who lost to McVain can lose to the guy who beat
McVain ….

conservative tarheel on March 21, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Since Eisenhower, when the GOP has nominated a senator, they have LOST every time. When the GOP has nominated a governor (Reagan, Bush 43) or vice president (Nixon, Bush 41), they have WON.

matthew8787 on March 21, 2012 at 9:42 AM

That is one of many reasons why I generally favor former Governors over former legislators.

Romney was a governor, has executive experience, and no congressional voting record to distort and defeat him with.

David Axelrod would destroy Rick Santorum with his own congressional voting record in 72 hours.

Romney also has the record of championing a public mandate for state-run healthcare.

And Axelrod will not think twice about bringing in the past LDS ban on blacks, using that to smear Romney as a racist… despicable yes, but very predictable. Obama used racism in his favor in 2008 (of those who voted based on color of skin vs. content of charater, more voted for him than against him), and they’ll try to do it again in 2012.

————–

I can think of two former Governors that I would rather see as the nominee than Mitt Romney:

Mike Huckabee
Sarah Palin

ITguy on March 21, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Martinez has yet another attribute: she preempts and neutralizes any move by Obama to dump Biden for Hillary – immediately after the GOP convention.

matthew8787 on March 21, 2012 at 9:49 AM

No, Hillary will jump ship after the election…Obama doesn’t want her, and she doesn’t want to be tied to Obama. She will run in 2016.
But Martinez would be an excellent pick for Mitt, makes him more “interesting”, kind of a McCain picking Palin move, spice up the ticket of a boring candidate.

right2bright on March 21, 2012 at 10:19 AM

matthew8787 on March 21, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Your reasoning there seems sound.. Rick is a risk, I acknowledge that. He frightens some voters, why I don’t know, but you have to deal with what is, not how you wish it was.

At this point, we can’t afford the luxury of taking a high risk.

mark81150 on March 21, 2012 at 10:21 AM

ITguy on March 21, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Huck is a statist. Gov. Palin had a chance to run-and she chose not to.
NO BROKERED CONVENTIONS!

annoyinglittletwerp on March 21, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Romney simply crushed Santorum because he focused on jobs and the economy while Ricky spent his time on social issues. When you are out of work or the high cost of gasoline is cutting into your monthly budget, you tend to be more concerned about the economy than you are about social issues.

Old Fritz on March 21, 2012 at 10:05 AM

First, Rick did not focus his time on “social issues”, the MSM did, his speeches were on the economy…do a little homework and don’t listen to the pundits.

Second, Rick was outspent 7:1 in advertising, and that is a huge, huge, advantage. And many back to the same old Mitt idea of personally attacking the other candidate, and not “focusing” on the issues.

right2bright on March 21, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Primaries bring out the worst in competing camps. People on all sides say things they regret. Conflict gets personalized. Yes, some of the pro-Romney posters have gone way overboard, but I have also been subject to many vile comments from Dr Tesla and other pro-Santo posters — the vitriole goes both ways.

We will ALL need each other later.

matthew8787 on March 21, 2012 at 10:01 AM

agreed ….

and I have seen it on both sides …..

conservative tarheel on March 21, 2012 at 10:25 AM

mark81150 on March 21, 2012 at 9:59 AM

great post, mark

Priscilla on March 21, 2012 at 10:27 AM

I was out of the loop in 08,.. I was dealing with medical issues and really didn’t get alot of information on Huckabee, or any of the ones running.

I’ve seen his show once or twice,.. and he.. oh,.. I don’t know.. just refuse to form a judgement till I know more about him.

I hope my post above didn’t come off as arrogant. I’m obviously one voice in a 300 million.. who I support doesn’t affect much, I thought that if I showed my reasoning, it’s be easier for the two sides to come together. Not because my support changes anyone’s mind. My ego was NEVER that big..

mark81150 on March 21, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Romney won’t pick a white guy for VP.

The days of two white guy Presidential tickets are over for both parties.

Moesart on March 21, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Martinez has yet another attribute: she preempts and neutralizes any move by Obama to dump Biden for Hillary – immediately after the GOP convention.

matthew8787 on March 21, 2012 at 9:49 AM
No, Hillary will jump ship after the election…Obama doesn’t want her, and she doesn’t want to be tied to Obama. She will run in 2016.
But Martinez would be an excellent pick for Mitt, makes him more “interesting”, kind of a McCain picking Palin move, spice up the ticket of a boring candidate.

right2bright on March 21, 2012 at 10:19 AM

I’m not suggesting that Obama will likely dump Biden and choose Hillary. He doesn’t want her, but what happens if he is 10+ points down to Romney at the start of the Dem convention? Obama will take Hillary if he needs her and throw Biden under the bus in a New York minute. I am only saying that a Martinez pick would be a prevent defense against this possibility.

matthew8787 on March 21, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Huck is a statist. Gov. Palin had a chance to run-and she chose not to.
NO BROKERED CONVENTIONS!

annoyinglittletwerp on March 21, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Both Romney and Santorum have also been called “statist”.

If we end up with a brokered convention, so be it. And at that point, I don’t think we should nominate someone who generates even less enthusiasm than John McCain. (Romney is getting a smaller percentage of the total votes than McCain did, even in places like Illinois)

And while I like Rick Santorum, he has not been able to control the message. The media has controlled him, and not vice versa. The same goes for Governor Rick Perry… I like him, but he let the media control his message and he wasn’t good at controlling his message himself… even/especially in debates.

Both Huckabee and Palin know how to get their message out and not let the media control them.

ITguy on March 21, 2012 at 10:32 AM

mark81150 on March 21, 2012 at 10:28 AM

You came across as genuine and sincere, not arrogant. Share your thoughts with others.

matthew8787 on March 21, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Both Huckabee and Palin know how to get their message out and not let the media control them.

ITguy on March 21, 2012 at 10:32 AM

I said it in 2008-I will never vote for Huck…and Palin’s time to run was this year.
That’s it for her.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 21, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Romney, by contrast, is well-positioned on this issue regardless of how the Supremes rule: uphold, knock down, or punt.

matthew8787 on March 21, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Well if you think being the “father” of such a failed concept is “well-positioned”, I don’t know what to say.
That fact that Mitt can’t take a stand on these major issues, is one of the reasons he does not have the support of the conservative community.
I don’t consider that a strength, I consider it a weakness…

right2bright on March 21, 2012 at 10:35 AM

I can see the intellectuals were out in force last night. Glad that I had better things to do than read the writing on the HotAir Bathroom wall.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on March 21, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Well if you think being the “father” of such a failed concept is “well-positioned”, I don’t know what to say.

right2bright on March 21, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Romney to Obamacare: “Son, I brought you into this world, I can take you out.”

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on March 21, 2012 at 10:38 AM

matthew8787 on March 21, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Hillary won’t take the job…she is bailing out after the elections.
If she wants a run at 2016, she has to cut the strings with Obama, Obama will lose, I believe that is a fact, no matter who we put up…even Mitt.
He may ask her, we will never know, because she will tell him to shove it…he needs her, she does not need him.

right2bright on March 21, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Romney to Obamacare: “Son, I brought you into this world, I can take you out.”

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on March 21, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Of course, always a campaign winner…

right2bright on March 21, 2012 at 10:40 AM

I said it in 2008-I will never vote for Huck…and Palin’s time to run was this year.
That’s it for her.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 21, 2012 at 10:35 AM

twerp – I agree that this would have been the banner year for sarah ….
however …. I would not write her off yet …. she is young …. plenty of time

conservative tarheel on March 21, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Hillary won’t take the job…she is bailing out after the elections.

My conern regarding Hillary is if she is able to remove Barack Obama from the picture (either by having the forgery/fraud/ineligibility issue finally brought to the forefront, or by having her friends “Vince Foster” him and blame it on the Tea Party), and she steps forward as the Democratic nominee.

I believe that the Clintons still loathe Obama, and they know this is Hillary’s last chance.

There is a nonzero possibility that Hillary Clinton could be the Democratic nominee, and we’d be foolish to ignore that contingency.

ITguy on March 21, 2012 at 10:47 AM

mark81150 on March 21, 2012 at 9:59 AM

I’ve mentioned this many times but it bears repeating: Romney’s Georgia Co-Chair is the brilliant Attorney General, Sam Olens. He is among those who will be arguing for repeal of ObamaCare to the Supreme Court. I hope this helps allay your fears…

Buy Danish on March 21, 2012 at 10:52 AM

mark81150 on March 21, 2012 at 9:59 AM

I can appreciate that you’ve had a change of horses in his race. However, I note that your backing Romney now solely based upon his pledge to repeal Obamacare. May I suggest before you switch horses, that you read an article in the Washington Examiner day before yesterday wherein Ken Cuccinelli, Atty. General for Virginia and lead attorney on the fight against Obamacare in the Supreme Court, stated that he feels that Obamacare will be taken off the table if we nominate Romney. This is a guy who is in the thick of the fight on this issue so it would be advisable for people to pay attention to what someone in his position has to say. Also, be mindful that Romney may assert that he’ll repeal Obamacare, but the truth of the matter is that he was the grandfather of it and once the general comes along, he will really not be able to bring it up much against Obama without it getting thrown right back into his face.

KickandSwimMom on March 21, 2012 at 10:54 AM

****Breaking News****

Jeb Bush just endorsed Mitt Romney.

Buy Danish on March 21, 2012 at 10:54 AM

I note that your backing Romney now solely based upon his pledge to repeal Obamacare. May I suggest before you switch horses, that you read an article in the Washington Examiner… he feels that Obamacare will be taken off the table if we nominate Romney. This is a guy who is in the thick of the fight on this issue so it would be advisable for people to pay attention to what someone in his position has to say.

KickandSwimMom on March 21, 2012 at 10:54 AM

And look at Romney’s past to see whether or not he has kept his promises. He hasn’t. In 2008, he made a promise that he broke less than 48 hours later, then lied about his reasons for breaking that promise, then a week later tried to unethically influence a still-active primary by claiming to “release” his delegates to John McCain in an attempt to force other candidates out of the race.

I’ve said the following before, but I’m going to say it again.

Late in the evening of February 5, 2008…

“We’re gonna keep on battling. We’re gonna go all the way to the convention.”

Less than 48 hours later he broke that promise, quit the race, and lied about his reasons for quitting…

“Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror”

Romney quit when he should have kept fighting!

Romney lied when he claimed that his reasons for quitting had anything to do with terrorism.

And then a week after he quit, Romney “released” his delegates to McCain, in an effort to hand the nomination to McCain on a silver platter, while Mike Huckabee was still fighting on. Huckabee won one state’s primary with 60% of the vote after Romney quit. (Which means that it is not a given that McCain was going to win all primaries from there on out). Romney should have stayed in, like Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul did, and McCain would have run out of public financing money.

Without any money, McCain would likely have taken a nosedive.

Romney, Huckabe, and Paul didn’t have to reach 1191 pledged delegates. All they had to do was win enough of the remaining primaries to keep McCain from reaching 1191 pledged delegates, and it would have gone to a brokered convention, from which a candidate more conservative than McCain would have likely emerged.

Romney should have kept his word and kept fighting.

Instead, he broke his word, quit, lied about his reasons for quitting, and handed his delegates over to McCain.

That is why I cannot trust the man.

He sold out his integrity for a chance for it to be “his turn” in 2012.

ITguy on March 21, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Comment pages: 1 8 9 10 11