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 7 8 9 10 11

So the so called “machine” didn’t challenge santorum.

ryandan on March 21, 2012 at 1:01 AM

Now we see how truly insidious the GOP establishment is. They will let Santorum have delegates he wasn’t qualified for just so people will think they’re not out to screw Santorum and shove Romney down our throats.

alchemist19 on March 21, 2012 at 1:12 AM

Wow…Santorum did that well? (watching reruns of Gunsmoke here) That’s encouraging.

Illinois sucks.

Lightswitch on March 21, 2012 at 1:10 AM

No. The final was Romney 47% – Santorum 35%.

GOPRanknFile on March 21, 2012 at 1:12 AM

That is a lie that 95 percent of Mormons voted for Reid in 2010. There goes your bigoted analysis.

Mormontheman on March 21, 2012 at 12:58 AM

True story. In fact, most Mormons that I’ve spoken with in Nevada despise Reid.

GOPRanknFile on March 21, 2012 at 1:02 AM

Do not know about the 95% but do know he was featured in Church Magazines, gave talks in Mormon Chapels etc. The church never tells anyone how to vote but mormon myth tells them the mormon should be the better candidate or the church would ex-communicate them. But this is hogwash. The church would only ex-communicate Harry Reid if he murdered someone or had affairs and bragged about it all the time or became gay and bragged about that. The church totally avoids saying how a politician should vote they separate themselves from politics so completely that some Communist countries allow them in their countries as there is no threat to their rule. For example just recently great things were talked about in Brazil, East Germany allowed us to build a Temple there before the wall fell down. The list goes on and on. Down side is this block voting.

Steveangell on March 21, 2012 at 1:13 AM

If there had been a challange the delegate count would have been 54-0 instead of 42-12.

So the so called “machine” didn’t challenge santorum.

ryandan on March 21, 2012 at 1:01 AM

I don’t remember all the details but there was a headline in the last day or two that there was a challenge. But Santorum’s campaign had a legitimate challenge against Romney too. Rather than both missing out on some delegates, the 2 sides decided to drop their challenges. I think the way it worked it, it would have cost Romney far more in the state than Santorum regardless of actual vote results.

Kelligan on March 21, 2012 at 1:14 AM

You think he’ll be back to admit he was wrong about the turnout tonight?

GOPRanknFile on March 21, 2012 at 12:44 AM

Drudge still has a link referring to record low turnout, but it was only referring to the turnout in Cook County. The turnout this year in the State of Illinois is over 900,000, which is higher than the turnout from 2008. Liberal4Life was just shooting from the hip, or was deliberately misleading.

galtani on March 21, 2012 at 1:15 AM

So Santorum got all his 12 delegates from districts where he was short of signatures. Romney flew paid staff in to get the signatures and had to use up resources.

In the four districts santorum didn’t file delegates he lost the districts.

If there had been a challange the delegate count would have been 54-0 instead of 42-12.

So the so called “machine” didn’t challenge santorum.

ryandan on March 21, 2012 at 1:01 AM

There was actually a story linked in the headlines on that very subject. It appears that Romney’s organization made a similar error in filing in Illinois, apparently by specifying Massachusetts instead of Illinois, which is why Romney dropped the challenge against Santorum in exchance for Santorum dropping the challenge against Romney.

So it’s not that you’re lying. Just that you’re leaving out the rest of the story, which you can read at the above link.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 21, 2012 at 1:16 AM

Apostles called him to be a President of a Stake. That is hardly a example of a horrible mormon. You are a horrible example for dissing on the dude.

Mormontheman on March 21, 2012 at 12:36 AM

Seriously, who gives a flying sh!t. There are Catholic bishops who have embarrassed the Church for years. Having a title doesn’t mean someone is a good representative of a given church.

Lightswitch on March 21, 2012 at 1:16 AM

Rubio if he wants it. Jindal and McDonnell should get a look, as should Rand Paul. No way it will be Christie or Daniels.

alchemist19 on March 21, 2012 at 1:04 AM

I think that McDonnell has taken himself out of consideration with his social issues push. Requiring ultra sounds, etc, may make a name for himself among SoCons, but Mitt doesn’t need to push indies away by sucking up tot he party’s riff raff. I never got Jindal’s appeal. I don’t know what it is that people think they see in the guy, but I don’t see much there. Rand Paul is his daddy’s son and therefore has only fringe appeal, non-starter. I think that Daniels is great, but probably not a great Veep pick for Mitt simply because the two are too similar. He wouldn’t broaden the ticket’s appeal. I like Christie, but don’t think he would be a good choice either. His act may wear thin over time and he doesn’t add any geographic or demographic diversity.

In my mind, Rubio has to be the front runner for the job. His priorities are usually well placed. He is popular in FL and among Hispanics, nationally. He won’t bring hard line social positions with him that will turn off indies and he isn’t going to say stuff that Mitt will have to clean up after.

MJBrutus on March 21, 2012 at 1:17 AM

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 21, 2012 at 1:05 AM

Yes you are a bigot. You said Mormons value voting for a Mormon above all. That is a one of the most bigoted statements I have seen on hotair. The Reid example proves you wrong and it was a caucus in Nevada. Mormons value the man with fidelity winning over an adulterer.

Mormontheman on March 21, 2012 at 1:17 AM

Wow…Santorum did that well? (watching reruns of Gunsmoke here) That’s encouraging.

Illinois sucks.

Lightswitch on March 21, 2012 at 1:10 AM

No. The final was Romney 47% – Santorum 35%.

GOPRanknFile on March 21, 2012 at 1:12 AM

In polling at the polls

In two way race.

Romney 46%
Santorum 42%

Proving just how weak Romney really is. This proves Santorum is the far better of the two. Illinois is very liberal but even there Santorum is close having a huge money disadvantage and organizational disadvantage. Whoever goes against Obama will have the disadvantages on both. Romney will totally lose. Santorum could easily win.

Steveangell on March 21, 2012 at 1:19 AM

Ok this is getting out of hand:

There Goes The Neighborhood:
If you are going to throw around statistics that sound even the tiniest bit fishy, you might want want back up your statement with some actual sources. Just a thought.

Now 98% and 53% do NOT want MITT.

Sorry but your guy lost. Santorum is the only viable candidate at this point.

Steveangell on March 21, 2012 at 12:05 AM

Now you on the other hand…that just might be the stupidest thing I have heard during this election. If that was the case, why isn’t Santorum getting the other 53% of the vote?

TheNumberJ on March 21, 2012 at 1:20 AM

I never got Jindal’s appeal. I don’t know what it is that people think they see in the guy, but I don’t see much there.

MJBrutus on March 21, 2012 at 1:17 AM

Perhaps the highest IQ in politics, brilliant resume, cleaned up one of the most corrupt states in the nation, Dems couldn’t even find a viable candidate to run against him for his reelection campaign, independents love him, one of the few that could please the establishment and the base, likeable, very quick on his feet, skilled debater, and has no baggage.

GOPRanknFile on March 21, 2012 at 1:21 AM

I want to know where this “low turnout” meme is coming from. Turning was just as high this year as it was in 2008. A little higher than 2008, in fact.

Turnout is always low in primary elections when there is no big local contest going on. This year was no lower than other recent years.

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 1:22 AM

With the possible exception of Florida, this is the biggest win of his campaign. Next up: Wisconsin.

Hopefully this puts Santorum to bed, but both Gingrich and Santorum are prideful men. It will be hard for them to accept defeat.

scotash on March 21, 2012 at 1:23 AM

@steveangell

The 46-42 number was when the third wave exits from cnn came in showing romney only winning by 8.

The exits only asked the people who voted so unless there is a stop newt factor out there romney would get at least 47 percent considering he got that with newt in the race.

The 46-42 number when exits showed a eight point race which is a 12 point race.

Exits that showed 48-40 was when they showed a 12 point race in the first wave which is what the race winded up as.

So 48-40 is more accurate. Then take out ron paul and in a true one one one Romney probably would have won by double digits like 55-45.

ryandan on March 21, 2012 at 1:23 AM

GOPRanknFile on March 21, 2012 at 1:21 AM

Maybe I need to give him a better look. I’ll retract that and do some homework on him. Thanks :-)

MJBrutus on March 21, 2012 at 1:23 AM

@alchemist

The decision to not challenge santorum was made january 6th when newt was also stronger at that time.

The romney campaign didn’t challenge him because in illinois a campaign has to challenge another campaign so there is an unwritten rule not to do that.

It wasn’t like a voter challenging or having to meet the requirements without a challenge.

ryandan on March 21, 2012 at 1:25 AM

Mormontheman on March 21, 2012 at 1:17 AM

Give up on it. It is simply a true statement. My own parents accused me of listening to the devil because I am for Santorum. Not just them every member I have talked to would not accept anyone but Mitt. None want to hear any of the evil things Mitt did in Mass. Can not talk bad about members is some kind of unwritten rule. My parents are coming around now but I could not believe they were that close minded. They never were about anything else.

Steveangell on March 21, 2012 at 1:25 AM

Kelligan on March 21, 2012 at 1:14 AM

I read that article. The challenge from Santorum was that signatures from Romney to qualify for each district were notarized in MA, but Santorum’s limited number of signatures were notarized in WI himself. There was no election law in IL to say that the signatures HAD to be notarized in the state of IL. The deal was that both campaign dropped challenges. That agreement likely benefited Santorum more than Romney, because Santorum had 2 problems : Not enough signatures and they were notarized in WI. Maybe the Romney campaign decided not to appear petty, or the agreement might have be made before MN, MO and CO.

galtani on March 21, 2012 at 1:25 AM

Jindal is a smart guy and he is nearly incorruptible, as is Romney. He would make a wise choice as a VP candidate if he wants the job. A Southern evangelical on the ticket is exactly what Romney needs as a VP candidate. Rick Perry as VP might work, too as would Jeb Bush or Allen West.

It pretty much has to be a Southerner, though. Romney has no problems carrying the Northeast, Upper Midwest, and Western US. It’s the South and particularly the Southeast where he has trouble and much of that is due to anti-Mormon bias but many people are too “polite” to come right out and say so.

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 1:25 AM

Seriously, who gives a flying sh!t. There are Catholic bishops who have embarrassed the Church for years. Having a title doesn’t mean someone is a good representative of a given church.

Lightswitch on March 21, 2012 at 1:16 AM

It’s a little bit different in our church. There is a lot of vetting going on. And those who do almost anything against the standards of the Church are removed fairly quickly. We believe that they are acting a direct messenger of God. So they better be worthy.

TheNumberJ on March 21, 2012 at 1:27 AM

Please show me the map to how Santorum can possibly win the nomination after tonight.

He would not only have to win EVERY state, but win the proportional states with around 60-70% of the vote. He’s not even on the ballot in some places.

It’s time to move on, the Primary is over and to waste time and resources battling this out only helps Obama.

BradTank on March 20, 2012 at 8:15 PM

Don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 21, 2012 at 1:27 AM

Romney 46%
Santorum 42%

Proving just how weak Romney really is.

I am not sure I “get” what you are trying to get at. Because Santorum loses in that, that makes Romney weak? Are you trying to say that any “non weak” candidate should be able to blow the doors off Santorum?

That is damning with faint praise, if you ask me. Santorum is strong because he didn’t lose by much?

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 1:29 AM

Maybe I need to give him a better look. I’ll retract that and do some homework on him. Thanks :-)

MJBrutus on March 21, 2012 at 1:23 AM

No prob. =) He lost a bit of luster after his rebuttal to the SOTU, but it won’t be a big deal in the long run.

GOPRanknFile on March 21, 2012 at 1:29 AM

@theregoestheneighborhood

Chuck todd on twitter feed said he notorization isn’t an issue as there is no law for that in illinois and the santorum people were spinning it.

ryandan on March 21, 2012 at 1:29 AM

Mormontheman on March 21, 2012 at 1:17 AM

Give up on it. It is simply a true statement. My own parents accused me of listening to the devil because I am for Santorum. Not just them every member I have talked to would not accept anyone but Mitt. None want to hear any of the evil things Mitt did in Mass. Can not talk bad about members is some kind of unwritten rule. My parents are coming around now but I could not believe they were that close minded. They never were about anything else.

Steveangell on March 21, 2012 at 1:25 AM

What rule are you talking about? I have a professor at BYU who is voting for Santorum and another who is going for Ron Paul. There is absolutely no “unwritten” rule about not talking bad about other members. I readily admit that Mitt has his faults, but overall he is the best candidate.

TheNumberJ on March 21, 2012 at 1:30 AM

Please show me the map to how Santorum can possibly win the nomination after tonight.

He can’t. It’s over. Don’t engage with the dead-enders, it’s useless. They aren’t using logic, it is emotional and a logical argument has no power over “feelings”. But don’t buy in to the wishcasting. It’s over.

I expect Gingrich will be out of the race this week or next. Santorum might hang on till Louisiana where he might do pretty well, but that will be the end of his run.

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 1:31 AM

In polling at the polls

In two way race.

Romney 46%
Santorum 42%

Steveangell on March 21, 2012 at 1:19 AM

This was from the initial exit polls when it showed less support for Romney than he ended up with. CNN later acknowledged that Romney did much better than their exit numbers indicated.

GOPRanknFile on March 21, 2012 at 1:31 AM

Romney will be regreting those 12 delegates.

Ron Paul supporters won some county conventions and some of romney’s bound first delegates in caucus states are paul supporters and they would be free on second ballot. Santorum brought up getting these delegates.

If Romney falls 12 short he can blame illinois as santorum is showing him no mercy so why should he have.

ryandan on March 21, 2012 at 1:32 AM

None want to hear any of the evil things Mitt did in Mass
Steveangell on March 21, 2012 at 1:25 AM

That is funny. What was this great evil that he did that Santorum has never done? Medicare part D, Trillion dollars debt increases, fund medicaid and planned parenthood. Hmmmm thats not it. Your description of a true Mormon would only apply to Ron Paul.

Mormontheman on March 21, 2012 at 1:33 AM

Romney could have saved millions and had 12 more delegates but somehow he is this big bad establishment out to get santorum.

ryandan on March 21, 2012 at 1:34 AM

Would copy but it is a picture. Guess no one read updates above.

Go to Update: At 8:33 just above there is the exit poll

In two way race

Romney 46

Santorum 42

Now all you Mittbots can feel free to cry.

This proves beyond any doubt Santorum is the better candidate to face Obama.

Given this is in Illinois and exit polls are mostly in cities this is the best possible Mitt could do yet he is barely ahead. It is also almost the same he got in total meaning Santorum got Pauls and Gingrich’s votes.

Just do not know how this can be spun any other way. It is absolutely devastating to any argument for Mitt.

Mitt with all his money is simply unable to buy this election even when he outspends 10 to 1. How on earth could he beat Obama when obama outspends him by 4 to 1 or better? 20 to 1 counting free MSM coverage all totally for Obama.

Steveangell on March 21, 2012 at 1:35 AM

GOPRanknFile on March 21, 2012 at 1:29 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

The other posts are correct, turnout is HIGHER than in 2008.

scotash on March 21, 2012 at 1:39 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

Steveangell on March 21, 2012 at 1:35 AM

Yeah a couple of us have already addressed this.

GOPRanknFile on March 21, 2012 at 1:40 AM

No. The final was Romney 47% – Santorum 35%.

GOPRanknFile on March 21, 2012 at 1:12 AM

Lol..then I was right. Illinois sucks!

Lightswitch on March 21, 2012 at 1:41 AM

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 21, 2012 at 1:05 AM

Yes you are a bigot. You said Mormons value voting for a Mormon above all. That is a one of the most bigoted statements I have seen on hotair. The Reid example proves you wrong and it was a caucus in Nevada. Mormons value the man with fidelity winning over an adulterer.

Mormontheman on March 21, 2012 at 1:17 AM

And that’s why people don’t point out the facts: they know someone will just scream names at them.

I quoted the exit polls showing 95% of Mormons voting for Romney in Nevada. I don’t quote it gleefully, but because it’s disturbing. We should vote based on who lines up with our principles and is a candidate we believe in, not which religion they are.

If I thought Mitt was a good candidate, if I agreed with his principles, if he wasn’t such a two-faced politician, I would vote for him.

But 95% is the kind of number you don’t see in open elections. Reagan won one of the biggest landslides ever in 1984, with a total of 49 states, but you never saw 95% of any voting bloc turning out for him. So, yes, a margin that big can only be explained by people voting for a fellow Mormon.

And if you don’t like having this pointed out, then quit claiming that people who reject Romney are bigoted against Mormons. That opens the door to examining how much Mormons tend to vote based on their own religious affiliation.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 21, 2012 at 1:42 AM

That is funny. What was this great evil that he did that Santorum has never done? Medicare part D, Trillion dollars debt increases, fund medicaid and planned parenthood. Hmmmm thats not it. Your description of a true Mormon would only apply to Ron Paul.

Mormontheman on March 21, 2012 at 1:33 AM

Well aware of these very minor problems there is no perfect nominee.

Supporting GW Bush I understand but he should have at least opened his mouth more on these. Do not see how he could have voted against them though knowing how votes actually work. Nearly every vote will have something in it that is bad. Medicare is the real problem. Part D certainly added to it however it is not like Medicare would be fixed and I support pills over operations myself. Fact was Seniors could not afford medicine so often were operated on when the problem got worse. That is inhumane in my book. Medicare will break the US bank Part D hastens it. But only when we break the bank will anything be fixed that is simply a fact. A trap set by Marxist Wilson and FDR and so on. Santorum at least acknowledges the real problem Mitt does NOT.

Planed Parenthood is a vote that is impossible to avoid unless you have 60 Republican Senators. You can either fund it or stop all business. Stupid but true. Mitt gave his own personal money to Planed Parenthood. Is that better in your book?

Steveangell on March 21, 2012 at 1:44 AM

2012:

Romney 428,434
Santorum 321,079
Paul 85,464
Gingrich 72,942

Total 907,919 with 99% counted.

2008:

McCain 424,071
Romney 256,805
Huckabee 147,626
Paul 45,166
Giuliani 11,314
Thompson 7,100
Tancredo 369

Total 895,247

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 1:46 AM

Mitt gave his own personal money to Planed Parenthood. Is that better in your book?

Steveangell on March 21, 2012 at 1:44 AM

The entrance fee to some campaign event in 94 is what your concern troll brain is actually worried about?

Mormontheman on March 21, 2012 at 1:48 AM

What was this great evil that he did that Santorum has never done?

Saying that the idea that the states have all powers except those explicitly prohibited in the Constitution is “wrong”.

Saying that there is no limit to the powers of the federal government over the individual to regulate “behaviors”.

Saying that there is no expectation of privacy from the federal government.

Those are the ones that absolutely make him a “must stop” candidate for me.

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 1:48 AM

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 1:46 AM

Yup and it’s even higher when you count the votes of Perry and Roemer, who combined received 9,127 so it’s 917,046 with 99% in.

GOPRanknFile on March 21, 2012 at 1:51 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

I think she is the ideal candidate, but I am pretty sure I read an interview with her saying that she isn’t interested and that finishing her term in NM is her priority no 1. And she sounded as firm as Condi Rice when she said that…and then there’s Brian Sandoval who can be a great choice too…She is by far my number one choice and will help a lot wit the Hispanic vote in the South, but Sandoval is pretty good too and brings a wider perspective, plus he has some serious credentials as former attorney general of Nevada and fed judge…

jimver on March 21, 2012 at 1:54 AM

It’s a little bit different in our church. There is a lot of vetting going on. And those who do almost anything against the standards of the Church are removed fairly quickly. We believe that they are acting a direct messenger of God. So they better be worthy.

TheNumberJ on March 21, 2012 at 1:27 AM

Swell, Mitt Romney is a messenger of God. Shoot me now. Aside from my snide comment, human nature is what it is. Doesn’t matter what church it is.

Lightswitch on March 21, 2012 at 1:54 AM

Romney will be regreting those 12 delegates.

Ron Paul supporters won some county conventions and some of romney’s bound first delegates in caucus states are paul supporters and they would be free on second ballot. Santorum brought up getting these delegates.

If Romney falls 12 short he can blame illinois as santorum is showing him no mercy so why should he have.

ryandan on March 21, 2012 at 1:32 AM

Romney has won 54% of the delegates so far. In the upcoming primaries, CA, DE, MD, NJ ,DC, UT are all winner takes all states which Romney is likely to win. The few remaining states where Santorum has distinct advantage,are pretty much all proportional based. I am not that knowledgeable to do the detail calculation, but are you that worried about the math?

galtani on March 21, 2012 at 1:55 AM

And I think Mitt should pick Bobby Jindal (if he wants the job) as VP or maybe Rick Perry or even Allen West or Jeb Bush. He needs a Southerner. An evangelical Southerner would be best.

Even Newt might work.

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 1:56 AM

That is damning with faint praise, if you ask me. Santorum is strong because he didn’t lose by much?

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 1:29 AM

Santorum did well in a notoriously cr@ppy, liberal, and crooked state. Like twerp said, our governors will make your license plates.

Lightswitch on March 21, 2012 at 1:59 AM

Coronation.

As long as Mitt Romney can also outspend Barack Obama seven to one in the general election, all should go well.

David Blue on March 21, 2012 at 1:59 AM

Well, this site won’t let me link to them, but according 2012 republican primary exit polls, on CNN, in Nevada, 88% of Mormons voted for Romney, and in Arizona 96% of Mormons voted for Romney.

I’m not trying to make a point with this. I just find it interesting.

JannyMae on March 21, 2012 at 2:00 AM

What about Susana Martinez?

Romney will have no problem carrying the Southwest, I mean, he will do as well as anyone could and better than most. First of all there’s no anti-Mormon bias in the Western US, or very little. That is mostly back East. He needs a Southerner. That is where he will have the most difficulty. I would say Jindal is probably the best choice, if Jindal wants the job. He’s only just starting his second term as Governor, though, so he might want to stick with that for a while.

Jan Brewer would be a good choice but she is from the Southwest where Romney doesn’t really need the help. Allen West would be good. Lt. Col. West can bring the fire and brimstone in an emotional stump speech and Romney needs that. West is a great orator and he knows his history.

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 2:03 AM

I’m not trying to make a point with this. I just find it interesting.

Of COURSE you are trying to make a point with that or you wouldn’t have said it. Most Mormons in those states tend to be conservative Republicans and they, of course, don’t have an anti-Mormon bias as many evangelicals and Baptists do in the Southeast.

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 2:05 AM

That is funny. What was this great evil that he did that Santorum has never done? Medicare part D, Trillion dollars debt increases, fund medicaid and planned parenthood. Hmmmm thats not it. Your description of a true Mormon would only apply to Ron Paul.

Mormontheman on March 21, 2012 at 1:33 AM

Romneycare

Lightswitch on March 21, 2012 at 2:05 AM

Saying that the idea that the states have all powers except those explicitly prohibited in the Constitution is “wrong”.

Saying that there is no limit to the powers of the federal government over the individual to regulate “behaviors”.

Saying that there is no expectation of privacy from the federal government.

Those are the ones that absolutely make him a “must stop” candidate for me.

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 1:48 AM

I don’t believe he actually said any of those things, but if he did, and they’re deal breakers for you, that’s fine.

Romney has his failing state-run health care program that he is still defending, and he also has his promise to protect a woman’s right to choose. I don’t trust him on either issue, and they are deal breakers for me.

JannyMae on March 21, 2012 at 2:06 AM

And I think Mitt should pick Bobby Jindal (if he wants the job) as VP or maybe Rick Perry or even Allen West or Jeb Bush. He needs a Southerner. An evangelical Southerner would be best.

Even Newt might work.

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 1:56 AM

Jindal: Yes…would be a very good pick.
Perry: He seems like a nice enough guy, but Romney wouldn’t pick him. Imagine picking someone who would get outdebated by Biden.
West: Love the guy, but he may be seen as way too polarizing. He’s made his share of controversial comments; also would be seen as a “me too” pick
Bush: country not ready for another Bush; he’s more establishment than even Romney is
Newt: way too much personal/ethical baggage; if he’s doing this terribly in the Republican primary, how much of an asset can he really be on a national ticket?

GOPRanknFile on March 21, 2012 at 2:08 AM

Well, this site won’t let me link to them, but according 2012 republican primary exit polls, on CNN, in Nevada, 88% of Mormons voted for Romney, and in Arizona 96% of Mormons voted for Romney.

I’m not trying to make a point with this. I just find it interesting.

JannyMae on March 21, 2012 at 2:00 AM

I’ll do it for you. Mormons are voting for Romney like Catholics voted for JFK. To say otherwise is dishonest.

Lightswitch on March 21, 2012 at 2:08 AM

And do you have a link to where you got those “most Mormons voted for” figures? I don’t mean to many any point with that, I just think it is interesting.

When I have voted, an exit poller has never asked my religion before other than if I was Christian, Jewish, or “other”. I’ve never experienced an exit poll where they broke it down by denomination.

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 2:09 AM

What was this great evil that he did that Santorum has never done?

Saying that the idea that the states have all powers except those explicitly prohibited in the Constitution is “wrong”.

Saying that there is no limit to the powers of the federal government over the individual to regulate “behaviors”.

Saying that there is no expectation of privacy from the federal government.

Those are the ones that absolutely make him a “must stop” candidate for me.

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 1:48 AM

Unfortunately, virtyally everything you just said was wrong. What Santorum did was criticize a SCOTUS decision that declared that state and local governments could not regulate certain behaviors due to a supposed “right of privacy” that is not actually in the Constitution, but which they consider to be implied.

So no, Santorum was actually on the side of state’s rights and opposed to the federal government dictating the kinds of laws states could pass.

And he was dead right on the subject. The U.S. Constitution does not address questions like prostitution, contraception, gambling, or pornography. And yet SCOTUS declared that the Constitution prohibits states from making any such laws.

So your whole claim that Santorum was calling for the federal government to make such laws is backwards. It was overreach by activist judges to try to use the U.S. Constitution to eliminate laws they didn’t approve of.

Once again, Santorum was on the side of limited federal government and against federal intrusion into state laws.

Local autonomy is best. If a community wants to regulate prostitution, drugs, and other undesirable behaviors, they should have that right. People who don’t appreciate such restrictions will have no problem finding a place to live without them.

But when the federal government overrides state and local laws, then people are not free to regulate themselves as they see fit. Where would they move to?

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 21, 2012 at 2:10 AM

Of COURSE you are trying to make a point with that or you wouldn’t have said it. Most Mormons in those states tend to be conservative Republicans and they, of course, don’t have an anti-Mormon bias as many evangelicals and Baptists do in the Southeast.

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 2:05 AM

Now you’re telling me what my motivations are? I saw another commenter make the claim that Mormons vote for amormons, and I was curious about it so I did some checking.

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

JannyMae on March 21, 2012 at 2:11 AM

if he’s doing this terribly in the Republican primary, how much of an asset can he really be on a national ticket?

Two points about Newt:

He’s done very well in the states where Romney has done very poorly. That is, the Southeast. Mitt doesn’t need any help anywhere else except possibly the lower Midwest. Former Gov. Matt Blunt from Missouri might also be a good pick.

In October 2006, Governor Blunt earned the highest score of any US governor from the libertarian Cato Institute. Blunt received a grade of ‘A’ – the only governor to do so – by reducing Missouri’s budget, limiting Medicaid spending, and making the state government smaller.

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 2:13 AM

Oops, the second point about Newt: If the Republicans tie in the Senate, it might help to have someone with some Congressional experience act as Senate President and that is the Constitutional role of the VP.

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 2:14 AM

but according 2012 republican primary exit polls, on CNN, in Nevada, 88% of Mormons voted for Romney, and in Arizona 96% of Mormons voted for Romney.

I’m not trying to make a point with this. I just find it interesting.

JannyMae on March 21, 2012 at 2:00 AM

so what is so interesting there?…it’s rather logical…Romney is the only GOP candidate with a chance to win the generals and is as conservative as the other 2 (Newt and Sant) in the race, on top of it all he’s a Mormon…put the above pieces of info together, now, who would you choose to vote for if you were a Mormon?…see, nothing ‘interesting’ or ‘unusual’ in their voting patterns…

jimver on March 21, 2012 at 2:15 AM

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

Back up your statement about how Mormons voted. I have seen no such stats published. Where can I find them?

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 2:15 AM

And do you have a link to where you got those “most Mormons voted for” figures? I don’t mean to many any point with that, I just think it is interesting.

When I have voted, an exit poller has never asked my religion before other than if I was Christian, Jewish, or “other”. I’ve never experienced an exit poll where they broke it down by denomination.

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 2:09 AM

You didn’t even read my comment. I told you that this site will not let me post links to CNN. You want to see the data, then do a search on 2012 repubublican primary exit polls, for NV and AZ.

You’re nothing but an obnoxious little troll, and your increasingly incoherent posts are making you look stupid.

JannyMae on March 21, 2012 at 2:17 AM

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 2:13 AM

Why does he need help in the SE? Do you think that PBHO has any shot whatsoever of winning a single state in Dixie? The only one I can think of that would be in play at all is NC.

MJBrutus on March 21, 2012 at 2:19 AM

Back up your statement about how Mormons voted. I have seen no such stats published. Where can I find them?

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 2:15 AM

I just told you, twice, where you can find them. On CNN. That you are too stupid to comprehend it is your problem, not mine.

You accused voters in the southeast U.S of being biased against Mormons. Put up or shut up, a-hole.

JannyMae on March 21, 2012 at 2:19 AM

Two points about Newt:

He’s done very well in the states where Romney has done very poorly. That is, the Southeast. Mitt doesn’t need any help anywhere else except possibly the lower Midwest. Former Gov. Matt Blunt from Missouri might also be a good pick.

Valid point, but most general elections polls show Romney doing better than Santorum and Gingrich in matchups with Obama in those red states so he really wouldn’t need Newt for that.
Example:
In GA (SurveyUSA poll):
Romney 47% – Obama 42%
Santorum 47% – Obama 43%
Gingrich 48% – Obama 44%

Also, in a VP, you not only need an effective attack dog, you need someone who is disciplined. Newt is a loose cannon. Jindal, Rubio, Martinez, and McDonnell would all be superior choices.

GOPRanknFile on March 21, 2012 at 2:20 AM

Oops, the second point about Newt: If the Republicans tie in the Senate, it might help to have someone with some Congressional experience act as Senate President and that is the Constitutional role of the VP.

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 2:14 AM

I think just about anyone can fill that considering the VP just casts the tiebreaking vote. Not sure too many people from Capitol Hill like him anyway.

GOPRanknFile on March 21, 2012 at 2:24 AM

jimver on March 21, 2012 at 2:15 AM

Another HotAir member stated, on this thread, that Mormons vote overwhelmingly for Mormons. I wondered if it was true, so I checked into it. Now I’m being accused by some paranoid, wacko, troll Mittbot of having an ulterior motive. True colors shining through.

JannyMae on March 21, 2012 at 2:26 AM

Well, at least I didn’t have to vote for Mutt in the primary like I did last time. Good night.

Lightswitch on March 21, 2012 at 2:26 AM

So when you get out West, things change:

According to CNN entrance polls, about 25 percent of caucus-goers in Nevada identified themselves as Mormons. Romney was also the top choice among all other Christian voters, while Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul got over 50 percent of the voters who did not identify with a religion.

The thing is that in many states out West, the majority of the Christians of all denominations are Republicans and they don’t have a Mormon phobia because their little league coaches, their scout leaders, their school teachers, their neighbors, and their co-workers are Mormons, just like any other religion. The only thing we fear out here is overdosing on green Jell-O and maybe getting hit with a wheat grinder if someone gets upset.

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 2:27 AM

Another HotAir member stated, on this thread, that Mormons vote overwhelmingly for Mormons. I wondered if it was true, so I checked into it. Now I’m being accused by some paranoid, wacko, troll

I never accused anyone of anything. You brought the subject up and said you weren’t trying to say anything by it but it was perfectly obvious the opposite was true. And I have not called names or used foul language and all I asked for was a link.

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 2:29 AM

That is how things become “conventional wisdom”. Just because someone validates your viewpoint doesn’t make them correct. You said CNN did exit polling on how Mormons voted in those states. I have been digging and haven’t found it yet. All I asked for was a link. But the only data I have found so far says that out West, it doesn’t matter if you were Mormon or not, Christians of ALL faiths voted for Romney.

It’s different in the West than it is in the Southeast. That is why Romney would be well-served by a Southerner on the ticket with him.

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 2:32 AM

CNN exit poll data:

Arizona

Mormon
(14%)
1% Gingrich
3% Paul
96% Romney
1% Santorum

Nevada

Mormon
(25%)
2% Gingrich
5% Paul
88% Romney
4% Santorum
1% other/no answer

JannyMae on March 21, 2012 at 2:33 AM

In Utah the voting will be skewed because particularly in the smaller towns in rural areas, 100% of the population will identify as Mormon, same in many areas of Montana, Idaho, Eastern Oregon, Wyoming, and Eastern Washington.

So the notion that some high percentage of Mormons might vote for Romney doesn’t mean much in those areas because about 100% of the Republicans there are Mormons.

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 2:36 AM

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 2:32 AM

cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/nv
cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/az

GOPRanknFile on March 21, 2012 at 2:36 AM

I don’t believe he actually said any of those things, but if he did, and they’re deal breakers for you, that’s fine.

JannyMae on March 21, 2012 at 2:06 AM

Yep, and here are some more things Rick Santorum has said:

“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does.”

-Rick Santorum defending government bans on private, consensual homosexual activity between adults.

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. [Sex] is supposed to be within marriage. It’s supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal…but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen…This is special and it needs to be seen as special.”

-Rick Santorum

“The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statutes they have.”

-Anti-birth control Rick Santorum, happily asserting that states can ban birth control

“The idea is that the state doesn’t have rights to limit individuals’ wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire.”

-Rick Santorum

Santorum Quote:

“This idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do,” Santorum complained to NPR in 2006, “that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues … that is not how traditional conservatives view the world.”

“America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography.”

-Rick Santorum, wanting to crack down on distribution of porn viewed by adults.

“Every single speech I say that the issue in this race is not the economy.”

- Rick Santorum, March 19, 2012

VIDEO: Rick Santorum, in his own words, vowing to resist the influence of the Tea Party and libertarians.

bluegill on March 21, 2012 at 2:37 AM

Janny, got a link? I think I might have finally found it though.

Hmm, interesting, apparently Catholics vote for Mormons, too, in Nevada:

Catholic

(21%)

21% Gingrich

18% Paul

48% Romney

13% Santorum

I’d say that shoots down the notion that people vote for their own religion all the time.

Romney won in Nevada among Christians of all faiths, not just Mormons.

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 2:42 AM

Romney won Catholics in Illinois tonight, too.

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 2:43 AM

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 2:32 AM

cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/nv
cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/az

GOPRanknFile on March 21, 2012 at 2:36 AM

Those are indeed the links in question for 2012. For 2008 in those same two states:

Nevada: fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/the-g-o-p-landscape-in-nevada/

Arizona: abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/AZRepHorizontal.pdf

Interesting how you have to do an end-run around posting links just to get the information to show up at all. At some point, probably tomorrow, my other post with those links will probably show up, and people reading this thread then will wonder why we bothered with all this.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 21, 2012 at 2:44 AM

And Jenny, Romney actually did worse among Mormons in 2012 than he did in 2008. Romney got 95% of the Mormon vote in 2008 and 88% in 2012.

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 2:46 AM

Interesting how you have to do an end-run around posting links just to get the information to show up at all. At some point, probably tomorrow, my other post with those links will probably show up, and people reading this thread then will wonder why we bothered with all this.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 21, 2012 at 2:44 AM

Indeed!

GOPRanknFile on March 21, 2012 at 2:47 AM

But Romney’s loss of Mormons this year was more than made up for in gains among Catholics.

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 2:47 AM

STFU, Mittbot.

JannyMae on March 21, 2012 at 2:11 AM

Put up or shut up, a-hole.

JannyMae on March 21, 2012 at 2:19 AM

Yikes. He’s debating you, not attacking you. Lay off the obscenities and epithets.

almosthandsome on March 21, 2012 at 2:49 AM

I don’t believe he actually said any of those things, but if he did, and they’re deal breakers for you, that’s fine.

JannyMae on March 21, 2012 at 2:06 AM

And here is more from Rick “Porn Police” Santorum:

VIDEO: Rick Santorum opposing “small government” conservatism

VIDEO: Rick Santorum On Why the Pursuit of Happiness Harms America

You’re nothing but an obnoxious little troll, and your increasingly incoherent posts are making you look stupid.

JannyMae on March 21, 2012 at 2:17 AM

Are you purposefully trying to act in a repulsive manner, hoping to drive people away from your candidate, Rick Santorum? If so, you are doing a splendid job.

If not, you might want to consider the saying, “you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.”

The truth is that voters are rejecting the unelectable Rick Santorum in favor of another candidate. Now is not the time to be prolonging this Republican in-fighting.

We should focus our efforts on uniting for the common goal of defeating Obama.

Now is a good time to remind ourselves of something Andrew Breitbart said earlier this year:

“…and when I travel around the United States meeting people in the Tea Party who care — black, white, gay, straight — anyone that’s willing to stand next to me to fight the progressive left, I will be in that bunker, and if you’re not in that bunker ’cause you’re not satisfied with this candidate, more than shame on you. You’re on the other side.”

It might hurt now that your preferred candidate lost in the primary. Heck, I was in the same situation in 2008 when McCain beat Romney. But I got over it quickly and became an enthusiastic McCain supporter in the general election campaign.

You and others like you, Janny, are probably decent people, so I can only ask that you try to put aside the name-calling for a while and remember the larger picture.

bluegill on March 21, 2012 at 2:51 AM

Hmm, interesting, apparently Catholics vote for Mormons, too, in Nevada:

Catholic

(21%)

21% Gingrich

18% Paul

48% Romney

13% Santorum

I’d say that shoots down the notion that people vote for their own religion all the time.

Romney won in Nevada among Christians of all faiths, not just Mormons.

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 2:42 AM

Exactly. Romney has strong support among most demographic and ideological categories.

These aren’t facts the Obama-supporting news media want to tell, though.

It’s amazing to me that, despite the fact that Romney has been relentlessly attacked by BOTH the liberal media AND the conservative media, Romney continues to win across the country. Romney’s campaign organization and the candidate himself have been very impressive.

I have faith in the voters, who are seeing through the ridiculous, anti-Romney baloney being thrown at them.

bluegill on March 21, 2012 at 2:59 AM

“Every single speech I say that the issue in this race is not the economy.”

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

Here in California, we have a semi-open primary. Voters who are registered, but not affiliated with a party, are only allowed to take a non-partisan ballot unless individual parties agree to allow unaffiliated voters to use their ballot. Only the Democrat and American Independent parties have authorized unaffiliated voters (such as myself) to use their ballots for the upcoming primary vote. I’m sorely tempted to take a Democrat ballot and write-in Mitt Romney.

Left Coast Right Mind on March 21, 2012 at 3:07 AM

[Santorum] 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

Yep. And Rick Santorum also admitted to wanting to throw up when he read JFK’s speech about the importance of not applying specific religious doctrine to governing.

Republicans definitely dodged a bullet when they rejected Rick Santorum in favor of someone who actually can and will defeat Obama.

bluegill on March 21, 2012 at 3:11 AM

I have faith in the voters, who are seeing through the ridiculous, anti-Romney baloney being thrown at them.

I think that is just about at an end now. I first really started looking at Romney in 2008 when I was listening to Hugh Hewitt a lot on the radio (his show isn’t on anymore in my area). I wasn’t a Mormon-phobe because I was married to one until my wife passed in 2007 so that wasn’t an issue.

I really started digging in to Romneycare and realized that the truth of the issue was nothing like what was being reported. Mass. came this ” close to having a “Hillarycare” type of system, and many are *still* trying to implement one. Romney saved private health insurance for the people there. Yes, there is a mandate that you have health insurance, but if an insurer blows it, you can take your business elsewhere. When the government is the only game in town, you can’t flee.

Romney also understands that a STATE does have the constitutional authority to issue an insurance mandate and that the federal government DOES NOT. That is a huge difference.

He didn’t come into office with the notion to make this health care plan. The General Court was already working toward it and had been for several years. It had been an issue for a long time and the Democrats in the Legislature outnumbered the Republicans 4 to 1. He couldn’t have stopped it if he wanted to. So he engaged with them and modified it in a way that kept private health insurance. I don’t really have a problem with that. It’s what the people there WANTED. The people of a state should be able to do that if it is what they want and people in other states should mind their own business and be left alone to do what they want to do.

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 3:12 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

Just a note, when you check the link on Drudge about the record low turnout-it’s the Democrats that didn’t turn out, possibly because Obama was unopposed. But it could be an enthusiasm gap for Obama that could hurt him in November. Here’s hoping.

talkingpoints on March 21, 2012 at 3:33 AM

I think Mittens is drawing up the “short list” for his VP…

Khun Joe on March 21, 2012 at 3:36 AM

bluegill on March 21, 2012 at 3:11 AM

Tough days ahead for the statistically insignificant HA 35. Watch as they practically beg for attention from other posters as they state they will not vote..period.

After Romney defeats Obama the same 35 instead of being chastened will be emboldened. “If we hadn’t gotten out there and voted the old sob wouldn’t have made it. Now he MUST do what we say to do…”

So predictable and so very laughable.

After Mitt’s speech last night I think he is really feeling the momentum and the country calling him.
Next criticism from the HA 35 will be that he doesn’t know how to communicate effectively through Facebook…

Bradky on March 21, 2012 at 6:20 AM

Rubio if he wants it. Jindal and McDonnell should get a look, as should Rand Paul. No way it will be Christie or Daniels.

alchemist19 on March 21, 2012 at 1:04 AM

I like this new fellow. Someone should introduce us.

Jaibones on March 21, 2012 at 6:23 AM

rubio and romney. gives me the shivers. game ain’t over yet. keeping my fingers crossed, cause with these two losers we are doomed.

its the same as voting for a democrat. you just won’t get the shaft as quick.

renalin on March 21, 2012 at 7:02 AM

rubio and romney. gives me the shivers. game ain’t over yet.

renalin on March 21, 2012 at 7:02 AM

That’s so sad. Shiver away boy, ’cause this has been over since July. Those who insisted on placing the words, “myth of” in front of every reference to Mitt’s inevitability have only been fooling themselves.

MJBrutus on March 21, 2012 at 7:06 AM

Bradky on March 21, 2012 at 6:20 AM

Yes, I agree. These few dozen sore losers take things so personally and seem to delight in threatening to vote for Obama or not vote at all.

Typical post:
“I’m going to laugh so hard at you after the November election. I just can’t wait until then and I hope Obama wins! blah, blah, blah.”

And these people fancy themselves “true conservatives”? Can these people not remember the big picture (i.e., the need to defeat Obama)?

Maybe it’s better to not take them seriously. They are not rational at all. My guess is most of them take their cues from certain radio talk show hosts like Mark Levin. They tend to parrot people like Levin almost word for word.

Sometimes I feel like they want people to beg them to reconsider. In the end, though, such thumb-sucking crybabies vastly overestimate their numbers and their influence. Luckily, they are statistically insignificant.

The behavior of certain “conservative” bloggers and radio talk show hosts this primary campaign season has been very eye-opening and disappointing. I can tell you that there are many people whose opinions from now on I will hold in lower regard than I used to.

bluegill on March 21, 2012 at 7:14 AM

I think Mittens is drawing up the “short list” for his VP…

Khun Joe on March 21, 2012 at 3:36 AM

Maybe he can find a real conservative somewhere that can motivate the base, since the base is being taken for a ride once again.

Dole…McCain…Romney…Loser…Loser…Loser.

;(

insidiator on March 21, 2012 at 7:37 AM

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9 10 11