Pennsylvania slipping away from Santorum?

posted at 8:40 am on March 28, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

April will be a tough month for Rick Santorum.  The primary schedule has nine contests next month — three on Tuesday, a non-binding caucus in Missouri (again!), and five primaries on the 24th.  The two most likely states for a Santorum win are winner-take-all Wisconsin on the 3rd and the candidate’s home state of Pennsylvania on the 24th.  Santorum trails in the latest Wisconsin polling, and a new poll by Frank & Marshall College suggests that his support back home has declined significantly:

Rick Santorum appeared to be the Republican presidential candidate to beat in Pennsylvania a month ago.

With the state primary four weeks away, Santorum now finds himself nearly tied with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney among the state’s Republicans, and support is eroding rapidly, according to a Franklin & Marshall College poll out today. …

The poll of 505 registered Republican voters, conducted March 20-25 in conjunction with the Tribune-Review and other media outlets, shows Santorum clinging to a small lead over Romney, 30 percent to 28 percent, within the poll’s 4.2 percent margin of error.

That’s a big change from February, when Santorum, once a U.S. senator from Penn Hills, held a commanding 15-percentage-point lead over Romney in the poll.

This survey samples registered Republicans rather than likely voters, but since Pennsylvania has a closed direct election of delegates, only Republicans were surveyed.  The sample of 505 Republicans is significant enough to matter, although it will be interesting to see how well this aligns with other polls using larger samples of likely voters — say, Rasmussen or Survey USA.

What happened in the last month?  FMC reports that the importance of beating Obama has jumped ten points to 25% as the highest priority for voters.  Strong moral character still leads, but only barely at 26%, down from 36% in February.  The other two categories are “true conservative” (16%) and “the right experience” (21%).  That presents a muddy picture, and without crosstabs it’s difficult to see how this priorities played into voter choices.

On the surface, it makes it look as though voters won’t have much reason to choose between the two front-runners.  Santorum still gets higher favorables (54/26) than Romney (46/25), but that may change when Romney starts focusing on Pennsylvania after next Tuesday.  The other states holding primaries on the 24th are New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Delaware — all states that Romney should win easily.  Romney can afford to try a knockout blow in the Keystone State in the three weeks open to him.

If Santorum can’t carry Pennsylvania, the race will be over.  Team Santorum had better hope this is an outlier.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

I would never have mentioned Mitt’s belief in his future divinity if Bluegill hadn’t demeaned two good men.

Portia46 on March 28, 2012 at 10:36 AM

You always mention Romney’s belief. You are the one who brought up his great-grandfather. You know what this is called? Sippenhaftung. Google it, please.

Gelsomina on March 28, 2012 at 12:21 PM

They do proxy baptism FOR the dead.

How does that work? You have a bowl of water, and invite the family of the deceased in for the ceremony? What if you don’t have permission to use the names?

Mormons stand as proxy FOR their dead ancestors and are baptized FOR them.

This is still misleading, superstitious mumbo-jumbo. There are virtually no Mormons whose ancestors were Jews. So what the hell are Mormons thinking when they go baptizing holocaust victims?

Emperor Norton on March 28, 2012 at 11:51 AM

It’s not all that difficult to understand, though it is a matter of perspective, one that you must be at least a little bit inclined to be open to before the practice of proxy-Baptism’s for the dead will be comprehensible to you.

To you, it is reprehensible to have someone be baptized on behalf of someone who, in life, was not Mormon, was Jewish, or Hindu, or Buddhist, or some other religion. To us, however?

Consider it this way:

- From the Mormon perspective, one must be baptized by those having authority to do so in order to make any meaningful progress.
- Proxy baptisms are not binding in any way, shape or form. Those who are dead, we believe, have a choice in whether or not they accept our work on their behalf.
- It is essential for those dead individual’s salvation that they be baptized in the proper fashion.

To you, this may come across as an arrogant statement. To us, it’s simply a matter of course. You say that we shouldn’t baptize Jews, particular those who were in the Holocaust.

I ask you, that if, from our perspective as we believe, it turns out that our Religion is correct, and we did as you asked and every single Jew who ever was is never baptized, as you wish… What then? What do they do? They can’t progress, because they weren’t baptized. You ask us not to hold proxy baptisms for the dead. You are asking us, and saying to those who are dead who were not baptized in life, to effectively ‘Enjoy Hell’ because without it, they cannot progress, and they cannot do it themselves, hence why we do it for them.

Again, the choice whether or not they accept it is up to them.

And then? If we’re wrong and our Religion is incorrect? What does it matter? How does it effect you, personally? There are eternal and spiritual concerns, not merely trite, transitory temporal concerns as to whether or not we’re causing offense to decedents who still live.

From an eternal, spiritual perspective, those who are offended and outraged are, ultimately, to be ignored. And it is perfectly rational, and logical, to do so. They counsel the Church not to go about its work to offer a way for those who died to progress to the highest levels of heaven. You want them to be denied that option.

It’s really very simple.

kirazy on March 28, 2012 at 12:22 PM

The fact that he lost his last Senate election by nearly 20 points SHOULD have given people a clue this guy is a 3rd tier chump, but it looks like he’s going to have to once again be humiliated in PA.

BradTank on March 28, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Sanctimony probably believes it’s pious to practice self-flagellation. He’ll never accept defeat as anything other than “distortion” and “BS.”

Slainte on March 28, 2012 at 12:26 PM

Santorum will probably drop out if he loses Wisconsin.

It will shatter his credibility moving forward if he loses his home state where he has served as a lifetime politician. He will never again go this far in politics, but his ego is such he probably thinks he’ll be the front runner next time around, but he’ll never again be taken seriously if he loses PA to Romney.

The fact that he lost his last Senate election by nearly 20 points SHOULD have given people a clue this guy is a 3rd tier chump, but it looks like he’s going to have to once again be humiliated in PA.

BradTank on March 28, 2012 at 11:59 AM

I have become convinced Santorum doesn’t think. There is no strategy. Instead of making inroads for a 2016 run, he is pissing off the “establishment” by (1) staying in the race, (2) smearing Romney instead of trying to win. He is not building infrastructure, not setting himself to be able to fundraise, etc..

He has no chance to win the nomination, yet he keeps piling on the debt, burdening his family by dipping into his personal savings, and burning bridges.

So, I do not think he will drop out. He will stay in this until the bitter end, thinking that what he is doing is somehow noble and just. But in the end, he will still lose. He will be in the red (and Romney will not bail him out), he will have burned through his personal savings, he will have burned bridges not only for a 2016 run, but also any run for office in PA, and he will not become VP, or anything in a Romney administration.

It is foolish, but so is the candidate. And because of that, I do not feel sorry for him. The only thing I regret is that this is costing Romney precious days to fundraise and focus all his efforts on Obama.

milcus on March 28, 2012 at 12:26 PM

I would never have mentioned Mitt’s belief in his future divinity if Bluegill hadn’t demeaned two good men.

Portia46 on March 28, 2012 at 10:36 AM

You always mention Romney’s belief. You are the one who brought up his great-grandfather. You know what this is called? Sippenhaftung. Google it, please.

Gelsomina on March 28, 2012 at 12:21 PM

I don’t think team Ocommie will go anywhere near ancestry during the campaign, with regard to Mittens. Besides, the lovely Ann Romney is traceable back to the Mayflower. They would not want to spotlight that… or would they ?

FlaMurph on March 28, 2012 at 12:26 PM

I would never have mentioned Mitt’s belief in his future divinity if Bluegill hadn’t demeaned two good men.

Portia46 on March 28, 2012 at 10:36 AM

That is so laughable as WE ALL know each other here on HA and know basic backgrounds of posters here and Portia WE ALL KNOW that you are always bringing up this crap on articles that have NOTHING to do with gist of the article just so you can bring up Mormonism…in a NEGATIVE light I might add by the way you pose your statements/questions.

g2825m on March 28, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Has THIS Santorum thread also devolved into a religious thread?

I guess that makes the point abundantly clear. Probably over 75% of Americans do not want religion mixing with politics and this is why he would never be elected President.

Nobody wants a President whose politics ARE their religion.

crosspatch on March 28, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Deanna on March 28, 2012 at 11:17 AM

It’s very clear that Santorum’s religion would influence his political decisions, because he told us so.

Obama listened to a pastor who said “God d*mn America”, and he dedicated one of his books to him, so there is a chance that his anti-American world view was influenced by Rev. Wright.

But would Romney’s Mormonism influence his Presidency? Obviously not. He never brings it up.

Gelsomina on March 28, 2012 at 12:37 PM

The fact that he lost his last Senate election by nearly 20 points SHOULD have given people a clue this guy is a 3rd tier chump, but it looks like he’s going to have to once again be humiliated in PA.

BradTank on March 28, 2012 at 11:59 AM

..probably get lost in the fog of this thread, but I want to thank you for your delightful phraseology. It will be added to my lexicon immediately!

The War Planner on March 28, 2012 at 12:40 PM

He hates Christians, his people mock Jesus

Portia46 on March 28, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Mitt Romney is an active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Alberta_Patriot on March 28, 2012 at 12:41 PM

But would Romney’s Mormonism influence his Presidency? Obviously not. He never brings it up.

Gelsomina on March 28, 2012 at 12:37 PM

You can bet your sweet ass Obama’s media surrogates will. It hasn’t been an issue, but it will be.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Pennsylvania slipping away from Santorum? There are reasons for that.

captn2fat on March 28, 2012 at 12:44 PM

I have become convinced Santorum doesn’t think. There is no strategy. Instead of making inroads for a 2016 run, he is pissing off the “establishment” by (1) staying in the race, (2) smearing Romney instead of trying to win. He is not building infrastructure, not setting himself to be able to fundraise, etc..

He has no chance to win the nomination, yet he keeps piling on the debt, burdening his family by dipping into his personal savings, and burning bridges.

milcus on March 28, 2012 at 12:26 PM

Exactly. For all the chatter about the difficulty Romney will have against the Obama campaign machine, what pray do they think Santy’s general election strategy would be?

Santy routinely shoots himself in both feet on the campaign trail just by opening his mouth, he’s perilously low on cash, his campaign is disorganized and his sanctimonious bedroom platform is fodder for team Obama fire.

Slainte on March 28, 2012 at 12:44 PM

You can bet your sweet ass Obama’s media surrogates will. It hasn’t been an issue, butand it will be.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Fixed it for you. You are welcome.

Yes, it will be an issue and it will be presented in a way to keep the religious bigots from voting for Romney.

I am not sure we need or want that group of voters.

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 12:49 PM

g2825m on March 28, 2012 at 12:07 PM

JFK was elected, despite anti-catholic sentiment, because he dealt with the issue of his religion up front. That’s the point I’m trying to make.

Romney and his supporters need to be ready when the Obama-loving media starts chewing on stories about the Mormon faith. That’s all I’m saying.

JFK also had the charisma thing going, and cute little kids. His wife wore cool hats and people wanted a reason to vote for him.

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Pennsylvania slipping away from Santorum? There are reasons for that.

captn2fat on March 28, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Humm, Richards chickens coming home to roost.

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 12:51 PM

JFK was elected, despite anti-catholic sentiment, because he dealt with the issue of his religion up front. That’s the point I’m trying to make.

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 12:51 PM

And Romney did that last cycle.

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 12:52 PM

But would Romney’s Mormonism influence his Presidency? Obviously not. He never brings it up.

Gelsomina on March 28, 2012 at 12:37 PM

You can bet your sweet ass Obama’s media surrogates will. It hasn’t been an issue, but it will be.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Obama’s media surrogates will do it, so we have to do it, too? Do we have to support the left’s agenda against Republicans?

Gelsomina on March 28, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Exactly. For all the chatter about the difficulty Romney will have against the Obama campaign machine, what pray do they think Santy’s general election strategy would be?

It is pretty obvious at this point that Santorum was “hired” to simply attack Romney. He is Obama’s stalking horse. He will continue attacking Romney for as long as he possibly can. It isn’t really about advancing himself, it is about attacking Romney. He thinks that if he can find something that resonates in an anti-Romney way that suddenly the voters will gravitate to him for no other reason than he isn’t Romney. It isn’t about voting FOR Santorum because Santorum’s only issues are A: I will pass laws in this country that will make your community like a Christian version of Saudi Arabia and B: I’m not Romney. And that’s pretty much all there is.

It is getting to the point where even if he were to drop out he can’t change his position and support Romney after everything he has said. His attacks have been so fundamental that they aren’t going to change if he simply drops out of the race. He would have to do a flip-flop of gigantic proportion to be a Republican supporter in the fall. He will have no choice but to either completely shut up in the fall or openly support Obama.

Santorum is a conservative Democrat running for the Republican nomination. Sure, he has conservative personal values, but his politics and his “role of government” vision is Democrat, not Republican.

crosspatch on March 28, 2012 at 12:56 PM

gryphon202 on March 28, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Obama’s media surrogates will do it, so we have to do it, too? Do we have to support the left’s agenda against Republicans?

Gelsomina on March 28, 2012 at 12:54 PM

I didn’t say that. But I maintain, as I always have, that Mitt’s Mormonism will cost him at least a small number of votes in the general. Not a whole lot, I think. But some. And given that I don’t think that Mitt’s turn in the general is going to be a cake walk, any liability could potentially be significant, no matter how ultimately small.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2012 at 12:57 PM

JFK was elected, despite anti-catholic sentiment, because he dealt with the issue of his religion up front. That’s the point I’m trying to make.

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 12:51 PM

And Romney did that last cycle.

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 12:52 PM

That’s a loser. If Romney ‘deals with his faith up-front’, then the anti-Romney crowd switches over to “OMG, OMG, why is he talking about his religion? His religion will determine his policy!”

slickwillie2001 on March 28, 2012 at 1:05 PM

And Romney did that last cycle.

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Yes, he did, but he didn’t become the nominee. The general is where the knives are going to come out.

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Portia46′s saying that Romney’s Mormon belief in afterlife divinity makes him arrogant is like saying Santorum and Gingrich are cannibals because they believe in transubstantiation. I am neither a Mormon nor a Catholic, but neither belief bothers me on a political level, since they are running for POTUS, not pastor of my church.

If Mormons or Catholics come to my door, though, we’ll have a spirited but civil debate ;) and I expect the same when I’m out witnessing to my beliefs.

captn2fat on March 28, 2012 at 1:07 PM

That’s a loser. If Romney ‘deals with his faith up-front’, then the anti-Romney crowd switches over to “OMG, OMG, why is he talking about his religion? His religion will determine his policy!”

slickwillie2001 on March 28, 2012 at 1:05 PM

It’s not a loser. It’s a necessity. He needs to be prepared. If Santorum loses Pennsylvania, voters like me will be looking at Mitt as our reluctant choice. He doesn’t have to yammer on about his religion, but he does have to be able to deal with the attacks that will arise because of it.

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 1:09 PM

It is pretty obvious at this point that Santorum was “hired” to simply attack Romney. He is Obama’s stalking horse. He will continue attacking Romney for as long as he possibly can. It isn’t really about advancing himself, it is about attacking Romney. He thinks that if he can find something that resonates in an anti-Romney way that suddenly the voters will gravitate to him for no other reason than he isn’t Romney. It isn’t about voting FOR Santorum because Santorum’s only issues are A: I will pass laws in this country that will make your community like a Christian version of Saudi Arabia and B: I’m not Romney. And that’s pretty much all there is.

It is getting to the point where even if he were to drop out he can’t change his position and support Romney after everything he has said. His attacks have been so fundamental that they aren’t going to change if he simply drops out of the race. He would have to do a flip-flop of gigantic proportion to be a Republican supporter in the fall. He will have no choice but to either completely shut up in the fall or openly support Obama.

Santorum is a conservative Democrat running for the Republican nomination. Sure, he has conservative personal values, but his politics and his “role of government” vision is Democrat, not Republican.

crosspatch on March 28, 2012 at 12:56 PM

He has to have an end goal though. He is still fairly young and needs to make money for him and his large family. What he is doing is assuring he has no future in politics. So, unless he wants a job on Fox News, I dont see what he is hoping for.

I get what he is hoping to do, but it is clear that aside from fooling the folks in LA, MS and AL, his approach is turning off the rest of the country. And the longer he stays in, the more irreversible damage he does to himself.

Again, he is free to do what he wants, but his approach is just odd, and quite frankly he is acting as anything other than the “team player” he has purported to be in the past.

milcus on March 28, 2012 at 1:11 PM

If Mormons or Catholics come to my door, though, we’ll have a spirited but civil debate ;) and I expect the same when I’m out witnessing to my beliefs.

captn2fat on March 28, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Catholics come to your door, or do you mean Catholic friends? My in-laws despise the Catholic faith, but they have never been anything but good to me. They don’t proselytize my way either, thank God.

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 1:15 PM

He doesn’t have to yammer on about his religion, but he does have to be able to deal with the attacks that will arise because of it.

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 1:09 PM

I don’t think feeding the religious bigots is a winning approach.

I say ignore them. They have already demonstrated that they are irrelevant in the primary. Why would they be more relevant in the general?

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 1:18 PM

I don’t think feeding the religious bigots is a winning approach.

I say ignore them. They have already demonstrated that they are irrelevant in the primary. Why would they be more relevant in the general?

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Because Romney will have to court voters who not only didn’t vote in the primaries, but also may have voted against him in the primaries. Don’t etch-a-sketch your principles, but you do have to etch-a-sketch your electoral strategy going into the general. I don’t think Mitt will be able to keep the same low profile he’s maintained so far. The media simply won’t let him.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Romney has been very generous to Santorum so far. I believe Romney could make Santorum look like a blithering idiot in about 15 minutes if that was his goal. Heck, *I* could produce a “commercial” that makes Santorum look positively scary. Maybe I would call it “Rick Santorum’s America”.

“What are the biggest problems facing America today? According to Rick Santorum they are working parents, single moms, and internet porn. The ability of states to pass laws that the President might not agree with is also “wrong” according to Rick Santorum. Did you know that you have an *obligation* to live under a strict moral code? That it is an “unwritten” rule in our form of government? Rick Santorum thinks so.” etc.

Using his own words against him would doom him in about 15 minutes after winning the nomination.

crosspatch on March 28, 2012 at 1:23 PM

I didn’t say that. But I maintain, as I always have, that Mitt’s Mormonism will cost him at least a small number of votes in the general. Not a whole lot, I think. But some. And given that I don’t think that Mitt’s turn in the general is going to be a cake walk, any liability could potentially be significant, no matter how ultimately small.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2012 at 12:57 PM

What a strange world we live in.

A patriotic, America loving Mormon (Romney), vs. an America hating, Reverend Wright disciple (Obama) and people still think that is even a contest?
Some self reflection is necessary on people’s priorities.

scotash on March 28, 2012 at 1:25 PM

I don’t think feeding the religious bigots is a winning approach.

Generally I agree. They are a very vocal yet very tiny minority. The trouble is that any time a Santorum thread is posted, it is as if they can smell it and come running. Pretty soon any thread having to do with Santorum ends up being a religious thread. It sort of reinforces the entire “religious bigots are the only reason Santorum gets any votes” meme.

I think we should focus on how Santorum intends to enforce “unwritten” obligations.

crosspatch on March 28, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Ed,

If Santorum can’t carry Pennsylvania, the race will be over. Team Santorum had better hope this is an outlier.

Uuum Ed, I hate to tell you this, but the race is over regardless of PA. The mere fact that it’s even close in PA should be the dose of reality you need. And if you think somehow Rick stands a chance at a brokered convention you’re kidding yourself. Hey look at me, I finished a distant second, I deserve the nomination!

Minnfidel on March 28, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Sorry. I meant Catholic friends, or people of other faiths/persuasions I might meet. You’re right, I can’t think of a time that I’ve had Catholics at my door trying to convert me.

captn2fat on March 28, 2012 at 1:28 PM

What a strange world we live in.

A patriotic, America loving Mormon (Romney), vs. an America hating, Reverend Wright disciple (Obama) and people still think that is even a contest?
Some self reflection is necessary on people’s priorities.

scotash on March 28, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Of course it’s a contest. It shouldn’t be, but it is. And the reason that it’s a contest is because Romney will not only have to fight in the general against the libtards who see him as the conservative boogeyman, but he will also have to fight against the people like myself who don’t see him as any kind of conservative at all. Whatever your personal opinion of Willard Milton Romney, that is a recipe for an uphill electoral battle that the Republican party has used all too often. The GOP tries to appeal to everyone, and in the process ends up appealing to no one (Hello, McCain!). No, it won’t be a cake walk. I place the blame for that squarely on the shoulders of Ye Grand Ole Party.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Santorum can win Pennsylvania and still lose, by a mile. There are enough solid Romney states for him to outright take the election and still have Santorum win a few others.

It’s over. It’s been over since Illinois.

crosspatch on March 28, 2012 at 1:31 PM

It’s over. It’s been over since Illinois.

crosspatch on March 28, 2012 at 1:31 PM

I will join you in your chorus when Mitt has his 1144.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2012 at 1:32 PM

aww, and when you think that only yesterday Ed was telling us how great the last few weeks have been for Sanitarium, with his cursing at the NYT reporter marking the best day on his campaign in recent weeks and hoping for many more such encounters :-)…methinks that now even Ed has run out of ways to spin it…looks like he’s pinning his hopes on this survey being an outlier…bit, desperate, eh :-)…

jimver on March 28, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Because Romney will have to court voters who not only didn’t vote in the primaries, but also may have voted against him in the primaries. Don’t etch-a-sketch your principles, but you do have to etch-a-sketch your electoral strategy going into the general. I don’t think Mitt will be able to keep the same low profile he’s maintained so far. The media simply won’t let him.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2012 at 1:22 PM

I meant to comment on your earlier analysis which was very well thought out. I agree that his strategy will have to change and I do beleive it will. I think there might be a few stay at homers or some who simply won’t vote for him based on his religion. I don’t think he should even try to appeal to them because he would end up alienating more people than he’d attract. I agree with others predictions that the media will try to make an issue out if it. It’s what the MSM does. They would do the same to Santorum and talk about how supposedly “scary” his beleifs are etc. I am an evangelical Christian. I have zero problem voting for someone who is Mormon. I have friends who are Mormon and they are great people we just see things a bit differently and i’m fine with that. I do think Romney will pleasantly surprise people in how he goes after Obama. The media and the Dems (redundant I know) will want to talk about anything other than Barry’s record. Mitt has been pretty good at staying on point.

Minnfidel on March 28, 2012 at 1:38 PM

It’s over. It’s been over since Illinois.

crosspatch on March 28, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Santorum should get out now, the sooner the better…biggest sore loser in the history of GOP primaries..

jimver on March 28, 2012 at 1:38 PM

I don’t think feeding the religious bigots is a winning approach.

I say ignore them. They have already demonstrated that they are irrelevant in the primary. Why would they be more relevant in the general?

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 1:18 PM

I personally don’t think it’s relevant in the primary or the general, but others do. Obama is Chicago ruthless and it won’t bother him a bit to add fuel to the fire.

Real bigots won’t vote for Romney anyway. He needs to get the votes of conservatives who already think he’s a weird guy (CEO syndrome, so I hear). Obama’s buddies, including the media, will come up with beliefs you’ve never heard of. They will cover their lies with dopey expressions like:

Some say…
The rumor around Washington is…

You get the drift.

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 1:42 PM

The media and the Dems (redundant I know) will want to talk about anything other than Barry’s record. Mitt has been pretty good at staying on point.

Minnfidel on March 28, 2012 at 1:38 PM

The media/Democrat complex will also make Romney’s gubernatorial record an issue. The more Republican voters they can get to stay home out of disgust for Romney, the better off Obama will be. Mitt will not be immune to that kind of criticism since it won’t matter why Republican stay home — only that they do.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Probably over 75% of Americans do not want religion mixing with politics…

crosspatch on March 28, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Who said the following?

While just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support.

And:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.

Search for the answer here.

ITguy on March 28, 2012 at 1:46 PM

I will join you in your chorus when Mitt has his 1144.

And he will. Romney will win three primaries on Tuesday of next week: Wisconsin, Maryland, DC

That will add 98 delegates.

On April 24 there are 5 primaries:

Pennsylvania
New York
Connecticut
Rhode Island
Delaware

The ONLY one of those that Santorum is likely to pick up ANY delegates in is Pennsylvania. He will likely get none from any of the other states. He probably won’t get enough votes to get any delegates in NY, CT becomes “winner take all” if a candidate gets 50% of the votes and the last polling data I saw had Romney leading Santorum by 23 points in polling done two weeks ago. He had 42 percent in the polling then. Delaware is winner take all. Rhode Island is proportional but Santorum probably won’t get enough votes there to get any delegates.

Once those are done, the only thing Romney really needs is NY, NJ, CA, OR, UT, and he’s done. Santorum can win the rest of the states and it won’t matter. And even if Santorum were to win big in Pennsylvania, Romney can make up the difference in Texas.

It’s over. Santorum for all practical purposes *can not win* and he can not prevent Romney from winning outright. It is nearly a mathematical impossibility for there to even be a brokered convention at this point.

It’s over. If you are still supporting Santorum, then you are just supporting Obama.

crosspatch on March 28, 2012 at 1:47 PM

He has to have an end goal though. He is still fairly young and needs to make money for him and his large family. What he is doing is assuring he has no future in politics. So, unless he wants a job on Fox News, I don’t see what he is hoping for…

milcus on March 28, 2012 at 1:11 PM

I don’t see why Fox News would want him. I can see him getting hired at one of the other networks as a Republican pinata, like Parker or Brooks or Scarborough, but that’s a sad way to make a modest living.

slickwillie2001 on March 28, 2012 at 1:50 PM

The media/Democrat complex will also make Romney’s gubernatorial record an issue. The more Republican voters they can get to stay home out of disgust for Romney, the better off Obama will be. Mitt will not be immune to that kind of criticism since it won’t matter why Republican stay home — only that they do.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2012 at 1:42 PM

I don’t disagree that they will try to do that. But will enough Republicans stay home? Right now with all the bad blood it’s easy to think more will. Yes some will no doubt. But I think once everyone starts thinking about another 4 years of this horrid President they will vote for Mitt even begrudgingly. (Hey if I can hold my nose for McCain I can do it again for Mitt!) One issue I think you’re overlooking it that there will be plenty of Dems staying home and even some Reagan democrats (mainly older voters) corssing over. He’s not polling well within his own ranks and the enthusiasm for him is down to nill. The biggest factor is the group that decides elections. Independents. Obama has lost them. Does Mitt appeal enough to them? I think so, he’s not a social con, and he’s focused on the economy. So I think the stay at homers on bith sides are a wash. I think he gets enough crossovers and indies to win. I do think though that he needs to have a staunch conservative on the ticket though.

Minnfidel on March 28, 2012 at 1:50 PM

It’s over. If you are still supporting Santorum, then you are just supporting Obama.

crosspatch on March 28, 2012 at 1:47 PM

I am not voting for Mitt Romney in the primaries. Period. I don’t care if he has over 1500 delegates by the time it rolls around to my state. I’m just not doing it. I am hanging fire on the ABO outrage until after the convention when I will then vote for whoever is the not-Obama in the general. In the meantime, I will not vote for a repellent individual whom I believe simply does not deserve the nomination he seeks.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2012 at 1:51 PM

I don’t disagree that they will try to do that. But will enough Republicans stay home? Right now with all the bad blood it’s easy to think more will. Yes some will no doubt. But I think once everyone starts thinking about another 4 years of this horrid President they will vote for Mitt even begrudgingly. (Hey if I can hold my nose for McCain I can do it again for Mitt!) One issue I think you’re overlooking it that there will be plenty of Dems staying home and even some Reagan democrats (mainly older voters) corssing over. He’s not polling well within his own ranks and the enthusiasm for him is down to nill. The biggest factor is the group that decides elections. Independents. Obama has lost them. Does Mitt appeal enough to them? I think so, he’s not a social con, and he’s focused on the economy. So I think the stay at homers on bith sides are a wash. I think he gets enough crossovers and indies to win. I do think though that he needs to have a staunch conservative on the ticket though.

Minnfidel on March 28, 2012 at 1:50 PM

I hope you are right, and it does turn out to be a wash. I am merely opining on what I think Obama’s electoral strategy might be against Romney post-convention. Bear in mind as well, whatever strategy the Dems do end up using, it can’t be repeated often enough that they will have the complicit help of the media/Democrat complex in peddling whatever narrative they want to push.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Put NY twice. Meant Indiana. Romney won’t have any trouble in Montana either.

crosspatch on March 28, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Oh by the way, this news on Pennsylvania’s polls is very good.

Romney is going to sweep Wisconsin, Maryland and DC. then Santorum will be finished when Romney sweeps New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Delaware.

That’s about 275 delegates for Romney while allowing a generous amount to Santorum. That puts Romney at 875/1144 delegates required. Romney will easily get another 200 delegates in May and another 250+ by June 5, still being generous to Santorum’s count. Romney has about 1300/1144 delegates by June 5th. In early June, numerous states will allocate dozens more “at large” delegates that belong to their state but were not applied towards each win. At least half go to Romney, making his likely total 1350/1144 delegates required to win. If you want to add Utah on June 26th, Romney’s total becomes 1390/1144.

scotash on March 28, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Anyone attempting to get “conservatives” not to vote on the general for Romney is an Obama operative. They are just trying to get Obama elected.

crosspatch on March 28, 2012 at 1:54 PM

It is the voters of PA that know all too well what happens when Santorum is at the top of the ticket in their state. A TRAIN WRECK.

kurtd on March 28, 2012 at 1:56 PM

I am not voting for Mitt Romney in the primaries. Period. I don’t care if he has over 1500 delegates by the time it rolls around to my state. I’m just not doing it. I am hanging fire on the ABO outrage until after the convention when I will then vote for whoever is the not-Obama in the general. In the meantime, I will not vote for a repellent individual whom I believe simply does not deserve the nomination he seeks.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2012 at 1:51 PM

I second that.

ITguy on March 28, 2012 at 1:58 PM

I don’t see why Fox News would want him. I can see him getting hired at one of the other networks as a Republican pinata, like Parker or Brooks or Scarborough, but that’s a sad way to make a modest living.

slickwillie2001 on March 28, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Especially after he goes on Fox News to whine about them being in the tank for Romney. The dolt didn’t even know Rupert Murdoch had endorsed him.

Buttercup on March 28, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Anyone attempting to get “conservatives” not to vote on the general for Romney is an Obama operative. They are just trying to get Obama elected.

crosspatch on March 28, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Hello?! Did you read what I just said?! I believe that will be Obama’s strategy exercised through surrogates! I’m not staying home. I am voting against Obama. Period.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2012 at 2:02 PM

But would Romney’s Mormonism influence his Presidency? Obviously not. He never brings it up.

Gelsomina on March 28, 2012 at 12:37 PM

So you are a mind reader? If someone truly believes then their faith has an influence in their lives, as it should. Not saying it’s right or worng, just saying it does. So quit trying to downplay the role it may have in his life. Unless you’re trying to say he doesn’t really believe, in which case that may be worse. Geez you people have no idea how to support a candidate. Sigh…no wonder this field stinks so badly. Quit being defensive, it only makes your candidate look weak. I am ABO but I have to tell you the supporters are turning me off more than the candidates, and I thought only Paulbots could do that.

Deanna on March 28, 2012 at 2:09 PM

I am not voting for Mitt Romney in the primaries. Period. I don’t care if he has over 1500 delegates by the time it rolls around to my state. I’m just not doing it. I am hanging fire on the ABO outrage until after the convention when I will then vote for whoever is the not-Obama in the general. In the meantime, I will not vote for a repellent individual whom I believe simply does not deserve the nomination he seeks.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2012 at 1:51 PM

I second that.

ITguy on March 28, 2012 at 1:58 PM

1

I third that!

Sigh…no wonder this field stinks so badly. Quit being defensive, it only makes your candidate look weak. I am ABO but I have to tell you the supporters are turning me off more than the candidates, and I thought only Paulbots could do that.

Deanna on March 28, 2012 at 2:09 PM

+1000

melle1228 on March 28, 2012 at 2:13 PM

I meant to comment on your earlier analysis which was very well thought out. I agree that his strategy will have to change and I do beleive it will. I think there might be a few stay at homers or some who simply won’t vote for him based on his religion. I don’t think he should even try to appeal to them because he would end up alienating more people than he’d attract. I agree with others predictions that the media will try to make an issue out if it. It’s what the MSM does. They would do the same to Santorum and talk about how supposedly “scary” his beleifs are etc. I am an evangelical Christian. I have zero problem voting for someone who is Mormon. I have friends who are Mormon and they are great people we just see things a bit differently and i’m fine with that. I do think Romney will pleasantly surprise people in how he goes after Obama. The media and the Dems (redundant I know) will want to talk about anything other than Barry’s record. Mitt has been pretty good at staying on point.

Minnfidel on March 28, 2012 at 1:38 PM

A voice of reason!!

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Deanna on March 28, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Did you hear about how Romney turned Mass. into a Mormon theocratic state?

Neither did I.

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Anyone attempting to get “conservatives” not to vote on the general for Romney is an Obama operative. They are just trying to get Obama elected.

crosspatch on March 28, 2012 at 1:54 PM

you’ve nailed the RNC!! Who knows why they’re determined to commit political suicide with Rmoney and with all the push back from the voters.

mozalf on March 28, 2012 at 2:24 PM

I hope you are right, and it does turn out to be a wash. I am merely opining on what I think Obama’s electoral strategy might be against Romney post-convention. Bear in mind as well, whatever strategy the Dems do end up using, it can’t be repeated often enough that they will have the complicit help of the media/Democrat complex in peddling whatever narrative they want to push.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2012 at 1:53 PM

I am not sure how Owebama’s campaign will encourage Reps to stay home. If they want to point out that he’s “moderate” dems lose Regan Dems and Indies. I don’t think their tack will be that he’s not conservative enough. I think their strategy has already been displayed. They are going to go full OWS on him. Evil rich guy who laid off people in a bad economy! They’ll season it via the media with some off the wall innuendo about Mormonism etc. I’m not saying it will be a cake walk for Mitt, not by any stretch.

Minnfidel on March 28, 2012 at 2:25 PM

You can bet your sweet ass Obama’s media surrogates will. It hasn’t been an issue, but it will be.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2012 at 12:41 PM

They will use whatever they can against whoever wins. They will even make it up if they have to.

Can almost set a clock to it.

kim roy on March 28, 2012 at 2:26 PM

It’s no surprise. They threw him out on his arrogant ass in 2006–and now he’s back. They see Santo as a complete jerk. GOP leaders despise him. Believe me, they are going to toss him UNDER THE BUS AGAIN. Let’s face it, Rick Santorum is an arrogant asshole–who DEFRAUDED A SCHOOL DISTRICT of $70,000 and refused to reimburse them, going so far as to start a smear campaign against the school district via push polling instead of accepting responsibility for his fraud!

WHAT_A_JERK.

GOP Leaders Dish on The Real Santorum

‘Very combative’

“He went to an extra level of vindictiveness and nastiness against Pat Toomey,” said Shafik, the former Santorum aide, who worked on Toomey’s failed 2004 campaign. “He called up donors and said, ‘Don’t give to Pat.’”

And he recorded a TV ad discounting criticisms of Specter as a liberal that finished with him saying, “I’m proud to endorse Arlen Specter.”

By 2006, Santorum was in the midst of his own star-crossed re-election campaign against Bob Casey Jr. Fearing his imminent defeat, he called a State Street reconciliation meeting on a hot July afternoon with about a dozen cynical party activists who had been with Toomey in 2004.

“He was so desperate,” Shafik recalled. “He had been ignoring us, and it was only until he needed us that he tried to get us back.”

The meeting started genially, but according to people in the room, Santorum erupted when his support of deficit spending and earmarks was questioned. Turning the earnest gathering into a come-to-Jesus conflagration, Santorum reportedly yelled and cursed at the people he’d come to ask to help him.

“Rick was very combative and extremely arrogant,” said Jason High, a former chief of staff to Blair County state Sen. John Eichelberger who attended the meeting. “He told us the conservative movement in Pennsylvania began with him and would end if he lost to Bob Casey. Afterward, someone who’d been at the meeting called me and said he was voting for Bob Casey because, ‘This man has to lose.’”

“I discount him totally out of hand because of the way he ran his last race in Pennsylvania,” an influential state GOP figure said of Santorum’s presidential aspiration. “His last campaign was a disaster. His attitude wasn’t a little bit abrasive. It was a lot abrasive. You just couldn’t tell Rick anything.”

Influential party leaders who did not want to be identified said a Santorum nomination would doom the country to four more years of Obama.

“He’s rigid, and he’s too far to the right,” said one. “We need somebody that’s going to bring us together, not drive us apart, and Rick can be divisive.”

Added another: “If Santorum is our candidate, then that’s a sure victory for Obama, and we’ll just concentrate on other state races.”

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/01/pennsylvania_gop_leaders_santo.html

mountainaires on March 28, 2012 at 2:26 PM

And he recorded a TV ad discounting criticisms of Specter as a liberal that finished with him saying, “I’m proud to endorse Arlen Specter.”

Our candidates suck, no doubt. For me though I would rather have someone who ENDORSED an Arlen Spector than actually having someone who actually IS an Arlen Spector…

melle1228 on March 28, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Did you hear about how Romney turned Mass. into a Mormon theocratic state?

Neither did I.

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Did you hear the one about how Santorum introduced a bill declaring Catholicism the national religion?

Neither did I.

Santorum has had to deal with that type of distortion and, it’s radio silence from the Romney supporters here. Many of them have fed that narrative themselves. To top it off, they turn around and whine about it when Romney gets a mere whiff of it.

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Our candidates suck, no doubt. For me though I would rather have someone who ENDORSED an Arlen Spector than actually having someone who actually IS an Arlen Spector…

melle1228 on March 28, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Well, there is that.

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Did you here where Santorum claims that the GOP is no longer the party of small government?

I did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-WezrKqUBQ&feature=g-all-lik&context=G27968aaFAAAAAAAACAA

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 2:45 PM

What does that have to do with my post? I said some Romney people here are deathly silent when RS is the target of exaggerated religious claims. Others are actively joining in the attacks. Yet, when they are merely warned that the same thing will happen to Mitt, hysteria ensues.

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Oh, and Bill, I could post youtube links all day, but I’d only need one. Mitt, with his good friend Teddy.

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Did you hear the one about how Santorum introduced a bill declaring Catholicism the national religion?

Neither did I.

Santorum has had to deal with that type of distortion and, it’s radio silence from the Romney supporters here. Many of them have fed that narrative themselves. To top it off, they turn around and whine about it when Romney gets a mere whiff of it.

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Don’t waste your breath/type – it’s the Saul Alinsky method used against our own, if you can believe it. And if we’re going to throw around assumptions wasn’t Romney Sr. an admirer of Alinsky? Isolate, attack, and destroy your opponent at all costs. Romney will make the democrats proud, that’s for sure. Sickening!

mozalf on March 28, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Did you hear about how Romney turned Mass. into a Mormon theocratic state?

Neither did I.

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Did you hear the one where I said any such thing? Did you hear about any candidate saying any such thing? Neither did I. I rest my case as far as supporters working against their candidate. Face palm time…

Deanna on March 28, 2012 at 3:18 PM

What does that have to do with my post?

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Oh, I am sorry. I thought that Richard talking about using the force of government to solve problems was relevant to what he says those problems are, ie. contraceptives, etc.

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Bill, it seems to me you went for what you perceived to be an easy shot, while skipping over what might be more difficult to respond to. That’s ok.

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Deanna on March 28, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Did you hear about an honorary chairman of Santorum’s Florida campaign asking Romney to openly renounce his Mormon religion?

I did.

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=19551205&nid=757

Did you hear the party wide outrage about this?

Neither did I.

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Mitt, with his good friend Teddy.

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 3:04 PM

When they were both running for the Senate and were debating?

That was a good one.

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Our candidates suck, no doubt. For me though I would rather have someone who ENDORSED an Arlen Spector than actually having someone who actually IS an Arlen Spector…

melle1228 on March 28, 2012 at 2:33 PM

makes me smile :-)

mozalf on March 28, 2012 at 3:55 PM

That’s a loser. If Romney ‘deals with his faith up-front’, then the anti-Romney crowd switches over to “OMG, OMG, why is he talking about his religion? His religion will determine his policy!”

slickwillie2001 on March 28, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Which would be hypocritical, because the Mittbots do this to Santorum without any credible evidence that Santorum would do that.

Turnabout is fair play, and politics ain’t pretty. Get over yourselves, Mittbots.

JannyMae on March 28, 2012 at 3:57 PM

“What are the biggest problems facing America today? According to Rick Santorum they are working parents, single moms, and internet porn. The ability of states to pass laws that the President might not agree with is also “wrong” according to Rick Santorum. Did you know that you have an *obligation* to live under a strict moral code? That it is an “unwritten” rule in our form of government? Rick Santorum thinks so.” etc.

Using his own words against him would doom him in about 15 minutes after winning the nomination.

crosspatch on March 28, 2012 at 1:23 PM

That is a complete lie. Santorum defended the right of states to pass laws the president might not agree with, and he’s never said he would legislate his moral code in any way.

JannyMae on March 28, 2012 at 4:02 PM

When they were both running for the Senate and were debating?

That was a good one.

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 3:51 PM

When Romney signed Romneycare, while Teddy and a host of democrats cheered him on. Good times…good times.

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Did you hear the party wide outrage about this?

Neither did I.

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 3:43 PM

I never heard of it. I’m not talking party wide anyway. I’m talking about some of the Romney people here who whine about religious bigotry yet think nothing of it when it’s directed at RS. Selective angst, y’know?

I’m also urging Romney and his supporters to learn how to deal with it before the general.

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 4:10 PM

That is a complete lie. Santorum defended the right of states to pass laws the president might not agree with, and he’s never said he would legislate his moral code in any way.

JannyMae on March 28, 2012 at 4:02 PM

It’s ok to lie about that silly old Catholic boy. Go Mitt!

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 4:14 PM

For those who need it. / on my last post.

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 4:14 PM

I never heard of it.

Why am I not surprised.

I’m not talking party wide anyway. I’m talking about some of the Romney people here who whine about religious bigotry yet think nothing of it when it’s directed at RS.

Can you point out this religious bigotry directed at Richard?

I would like to see how it compares to the bigotry directed against Romney.

Selective angst, y’know?

Maybe not. Let’s compare the bigotry.

I’m also urging Romney and his supporters to learn how to deal with it before the general.

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Romney is doing the right thing by ignoring it. It should be left to others to deal with it.

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 4:19 PM

I’m talking about some of the Romney people here who whine about religious bigotry yet think nothing of it when it’s directed at RS. Selective angst, y’know?

I’m also urging Romney and his supporters to learn how to deal with it before the general.

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 4:10 PM

What type of religious bigotry has Romney himself engaged in that he needs to deal with before the general? I’m not talking Rombots here, you are urging Romney himself to “learn how to deal with it”.
Also won’t you be a “Romney supporter” in the general as well?
You’re eluding to the fact you know he’ll be the nominee.

Buttercup on March 28, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Can you point out this religious bigotry directed at Richard?

I would like to see how it compares to the bigotry directed against Romney.

I’m not going to compare anything. If you haven’t noticed it on your own, no big deal to me. I see you are on another thread trying to bait someone into calling you an anti-mormon bigot. You are on all sides and no sides. Pfft.

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Posting apology fast. It’s Buckshot bill on the other thread. My mistake.

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 4:28 PM

he’s never said he would legislate his moral code in any way.

JannyMae on March 28, 2012 at 4:02 PM

“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 OK. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

Rick Santorum – Interview CaffeinatedThoughts.com

Buttercup on March 28, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Buttercup on March 28, 2012 at 4:30 PM

He said “talk about”, not legislate. You may not like the talk, voters may not like the talk, but it’s not a promise to legislate. Oy.

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 4:33 PM

he’s never said he would legislate his moral code in any way.

JannyMae on March 28, 2012 at 4:02 PM

“One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, 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. There is no such society that I’m aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”
– Rick Santorum

Buttercup on March 28, 2012 at 4:34 PM

He said “talk about”, not legislate. You may not like the talk, voters may not like the talk, but it’s not a promise to legislate. Oy.

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 4:33 PM

And your still trying to figure out what the meaning of “is” is.

Buttercup on March 28, 2012 at 4:36 PM

And your still trying to figure out what the meaning of “is” is.

Buttercup on March 28, 2012 at 4:36 PM

You poor thing.

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Anyone attempting to get “conservatives” not to vote on the general for Romney is an Obama operative. They are just trying to get Obama elected.

crosspatch on March 28, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Yawn.

angryed on March 28, 2012 at 4:49 PM

I’m not going to compare anything.

Why am I not surprised.

I see you are on another thread trying to bait someone into calling you an anti-mormon bigot.

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 4:27 PM

You must have a reading comprehension problem.

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Posting apology fast. It’s Buckshot bill on the other thread. My mistake.

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 4:28 PM

And I apologize for commenting on your reading comprehension.

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 4:51 PM

I see you are on another thread trying to bait someone into calling you an anti-mormon bigot.

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 4:27 PM

You must have a reading comprehension problem.

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 4:49 PM

The apology immediately followed in the post right afterward, so thanks for verifying that I’m wasting my time.

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Lolz…I surrender!

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 4:55 PM

He said “talk about”, not legislate. You may not like the talk, voters may not like the talk, but it’s not a promise to legislate. Oy.

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Tell me oh Spinmeister why would Santorum “talk” about something so controversial and damaging in the general?
Is everything he “talks” about as a conviction nothing but empty promises that he has no intention of acting on?
I’m sure his evangelical base, who are responsible for every primary he won, would be interested to know he’s just talking and he doesn’t really mean it.
That’s what we need another empty suit who will say anything. You’re really reaching. You sound as desperate as Sweatervest.

Buttercup on March 28, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Romney currently needs something close to 50% of the remaining delegates in order to get the nomination.

The next set of primaries coming up are:

Wisconsin
Maryland
DC

All three of those are “winner take all” states. Romney is currently on track to take all three of those. They represent 98 delegates. So after next Tuesday, Romney needs less than 50% of the remaining delegates. He will need 481 out of 1053 or down to 48% of the remaining delegates.

Of the five primaries on the next election following, Romney is set to take all of those but maybe Pennsylvania where just to be generous give Santorum 40 delegates. At that point Romney’s required delegate count in the remaining states diminishes even more to something closer to 30%. So with every passing election and every Romney win, it gets more difficult for Santorum to do anything.

The following are “winner take all”

WI
MD
DC
CT if Romney gets 50% of the votes otherwise proportional.
DE
CA
NJ
UT

They represent 405 of the required 481 delegates for Romney to clinch the nomination ahead of the convention and Romney is currently looking to win those states.

The proportional states represent 654 delegates (Nebraska’s and Montana’s non-binding primaries left out). So Romney needs to get only 76 of 654 delegates in the proportional/direct election primaries to win or about 12% of the delegates.

Gingrich being in the race HELPS Romney in the winner take all states with the exception of CT. Romney needs 50% in CT for it to be winner take all and the last polling I have is Romney 42%, Santorum 19%, Gingrich 13%, and Paul 9% and that was as of 3/19.

Anyway, the point is that there is practically no possible way to prevent Romney from picking up 76 of 654 delegates in the proportional states. Even if he were to do something exceedingly stupid and Santorum were to do something fabulously brilliant, he can’t keep Romney from getting 12% of those delegates.

It’s freaking OVER.

crosspatch on March 28, 2012 at 4:59 PM

I see you are on another thread trying to bait someone into calling you an anti-mormon bigot.

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 4:27 PM

You must have a reading comprehension problem.

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 4:49 PM

The apology immediately followed in the post right afterward, so thanks for verifying that I’m wasting my time.

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 4:54 PM

And I apologized in the post right afterward, so thanks for verifying that I’m wasting my time.

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Words mean something, Buttercup. He specifically said he would be talking about it. I think that’s a stupid thing to say, but it’s talk, not a promise to legislate.

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4