The American Spectator : A Tricky, Twisty Primary Process

Text Size

Streetcar Line

A Tricky, Twisty Primary Process

By Quin Hillyer on 3.1.12 @ 6:09AM

As in 1976, this race has a long way to go.

This Republican race for president is looking increasingly like a hybrid of the races of 1976 and 1980. This thing has a long way to go.

In 1976, it was a two-man race. Gerald Ford won eight of the first nine contests, but Ronald Reagan won six of the next ten. Ford then won seven of 12 -- but, as in Michigan this week, several of his wins were nail-biters, with mere four-point wins in Kentucky and Oregon and a one-point squeaker in Tennessee. After each Reagan defeat, the naysayers pronounced him finally vanquished for good, with the establishment Michigan native supposedly firmly in control. (Sound familiar?) Then Reagan would bounce back again, though -- often with the help of crossover votes from conservative Democrats, which he openly welcomed -- and when he won a huge, winner-take-all hoard of 166 delegates in California on June 8 of that year, he entered the summer with, if anything, a narrow delegate lead. Only the power of the White House, with pork and perks to offering wavering delegates, was able to secure President Ford a narrow nomination victory.

In 1980 -- more like this year at the start -- it began as a multi-candidate race, with seven major contestants, plus a never-ending drumbeat from some establishment types for yet another late entrant (in that case, Ford) to make up for the supposed deficiencies of the original filed. Again, this should sound familiar.

But again, just as is happening this year, the contest eventually settled down, for all intents and purposes, into a two-man race: Reagan versus George H.W. Bush, with Ford (like Chris Christie?) still standing in the wings. This has obvious parallels with what really is a two-man battle this year between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum.

Granted, a third actual candidate, John Anderson, continued to compete quite hard in selected events through the first 13 states in 1980, but after a while he represented no real threat to win the nomination. Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul together are playing that role this year.

Anyway, Bush kept fighting well into May of that year, earning his last primary victory in Michigan (there's that state again!) on May 20.

These historical parallels are appropriate because, for the first time in three decades, party rules (combined with campaign-finance restrictions and opportunities) now actually encourage a lengthy process rather than a quick knock-out. Every pundit this year who rushes to proclaim Romney (or, earlier, Gingrich) the inevitable victor misunderstands the very nature of this race. This is a race in which voters are very engaged, very concerned -- and very willing to change their minds about candidates as the process wears on. Party rules awarding fewer delegates to early-voting states (and thus a greater proportion of delegates awarded late) mean that these changes of mind can have relatively large effects on the ultimate outcome.

The punditry might want a nice, neat narrative, but the voters refuse to provide one. They will continue to refuse. This week we can expect yet another round of "Romney is in the clear" media analysis -- and, as was the case after New Hampshire and after Florida and Nevada, that analysis will be wrong. Romney emerges from Michigan far lower on cash resources than he has ever had, and enters elections in a series of states where he has little or no natural advantages -- and with the stigma not of a solid winner, but merely a hair's-breadth survivor in his own native state.

Here's what is likely to happen going forward. On Saturday, watch as Rick Santorum edges Romney and Paul to win the Washington caucuses and regain a bit of momentum. On Tuesday, Santorum will win Oklahoma easily, will edge Gingrich in Tennessee, will be competitive for the wins in North Dakota and Alaska, will finish second to Gingrich in Georgia, will do pretty well in Idaho, and will be trying to protect a lead in Ohio. Like Reagan did in Texas, Georgia, Indiana, and Nebraska (and later in Arkansas and Idaho) in 1976, Santorum will thus show, again, that he's in it for the long haul, even after suffering losses.

Gingrich, for his part, will indeed win his congressional home state of Georgia, but that will be his last hurrah. He has nowhere else to go. Ron Paul has even less of a path to the nomination.

Then there's Romney. He'll win Virginia, contested only by Paul. He'll win his adult home state of Massachusetts, plus Vermont. And he'll be competitive in Ohio, Idaho, North Dakota, and Alaska.

In short, after Super Tuesday, the two front runners each will have won a significant number of primaries. Romney will enjoy the edge in delegates won, but it will be less of an edge than Ford once owned over Reagan in 1976. Gingrich, if he will finally acknowledge he can't win, could well endorse Santorum and ask his pledged delegates to vote accordingly. If so, it will be this cycle's most significant endorsement yet. And it would mean that Santorum and Romney move forward on a relatively equal playing field -- especially if Santorum follows up with decent showings in following contests in Kansas, Wyoming, the Virgin Islands, or particularly Alabama or Mississippi, which would be ripe for the picking if Gingrich withdraws. Looming in the future will be other Santorum-friendly states such as Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Nebraska and Kentucky.

Key battlegrounds, meanwhile, will be Illinois and Louisiana in late March, Wisconsin on April 3, and, tentatively, Texas on May 29. Somehow, Santorum will need to create enough momentum through this process that he makes California and New Jersey on June 5 into competitive events. Conventional wisdom says that both should lean towards Romney, but conventional wisdom is often wrong.

Clearly, Romney is the favorite. Nobody sensible would claim otherwise. But it would be crazy to start planning his coronation. Santorum is likely to dog him all the way into the summer; and the longer his challenge continues, the more Romney's air of inevitability will be fouled. The less he looks like a definite winner, the more he could look like, yes, a loser.

In short, anything could still happen. Because even though Rick Santorum is no Ronald Reagan, Mitt Romney has no power of the Oval Office behind him. The playing field is almost level.

About the Author

Quin Hillyer is a senior editor of The American Spectator and a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (103) | Leave a comment

PL| 3.1.12 @ 6:30AM

This race should have a long way to go no matter what. Most voters haven't even had a chance yet at the ballot boxes across the nation.

We've barely started folks. Some states have their primaries in early June. June!

Most people reading this are in states that have not yet voted and won't for another 5 - 8 weeks.

The obsession with excluding most of the nation (the voters! the citizens!) is absurd.

PCC| 3.1.12 @ 11:00AM

I'm a firm Romney supporter. I think he's plenty conservative enough and I think he's got the best chance to beat Obama.

However, I'm mindful of his potential weaknesses and I'd happily support Santorum (or Gingrich or even Ron Paul) if he should be the GOP nominee.

An excellent analysis by Mr. Hillyer.

Yipppee K| 3.2.12 @ 3:25PM

"conservative enough"? What's that? Don't you mean to say that his appearnce and demenor are conservative enough? One can't actually BE just a little conservative. One is either conservative or not and Mitt is definitely not.

Bob From District 9| 3.16.12 @ 11:39AM

Just another example of he's either 100% with us or not one of us at all. Another example of how independent thought is verboten in the modern Republican party.

He will goose step along with the other right wing clones, and never demonstrate a bit of real originality or depth of thought.

Alan Brooks| 3.1.12 @ 4:20PM

Reagan was shrewd, he knew Carter would screw it up (Carter had no vision), so he got his name at the top--plus his speech in at the '76 convention-- and probably knew he would be elected in '80.

It wasn't such a hard one to figure.

POST American| 3.1.12 @ 6:30AM

--ALWAYS key, when discussing the
elections of that time, to bring to the fore
the FACT that this was when the CFR's
cover op for the RED China handover
moved into high gear.

Though Reagan was NOT a member of
the CFR-Trilateral-Rockfeller cabal---Ford was.

BOTH were, we believe, the first open adulterers
EVER to serve, not only as Presidents, but, indeed,
'conservative' figure heads.

The Rockefeller CON-trolled CON-servative
press hardly made a mention. And BOTH
men were, on the surface, the perfect
'EYE---CONs' for cover.

AGAIN, corny we know, but dumping the
love of one's youth for an enabling fantasy
really does compromise judgement ---FATALLY.

The 'Big Boys' well know that
---and they USE it on ya'. . .

"American better watch it or
in a couple of decades we're going to
be a minstrel show --for RED China."
Gore Vidal
1985
(the height of the Reagan era)

---YES, and a minstrel show NOW catered
with GMO food under CHEM-trailed
and Fukishima fallout skies, and under full
spectrum surveillance from all quarters.

---A zealously EUGENIC minstrel show,
if you will . . .

spike59| 3.1.12 @ 6:43AM

tinfoil hat much, DrPaul?

Clint| 3.1.12 @ 7:46AM

Spic69's Mancrush, Bibi.

Moe Blotz| 3.1.12 @ 11:15AM

You should apologise for using the Hispanic slur "spic", Clint.

Mike Hawk| 3.1.12 @ 11:38AM

Clint the Islamist Firster is dis'spic'able. That's why he uses bigoted terms.

loulou| 3.1.12 @ 12:21PM

To say nothing of the Jewish slurs.

He's just upset because his man is now Romney's butt boy.

Occam's Tool| 3.1.12 @ 5:10PM

Clint is no stranger to being a jihadist buttboy, loulou. He's a two way boy from way back, as he can then service twice the number of customers in the same period of time.

By the way, loulou, you kick ass every day, and twice on Sundays. Nice job!

mixplix| 3.1.12 @ 1:15PM

Neat post till I saw the word CHEM-trailed then I knew you were an idiot.

Dai Alanye| 3.1.12 @ 1:27PM

I've been wondering for some time whether POST Toasties needed another trip up to the mothership for a software upgrade. The answer now appears to be yes.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.1.12 @ 6:30AM

The polls at Real Clear Politics indicate that Santorum has absolutely no chance of beating Obama. The polls are not elections but they indicate that Santorum is not recognized by the general population.

I don't think Santorum will get the nomination under any circumstances so he's only forcing Romney to burn through cash which will give Obama an edge once the party candidate is selected.

And what's Santorum really fighting for? He claims he's against Romneycare but he was behind Medicare Part D, a federal program which dwarfs Romneycare.

Santorum's has no economic record of success and that will be one of the main themes leading up to November.

In short, Santorum is running a dumb and dumber campaign. Even if he somehow wins he will lose. So what's the point?

L. Ross| 3.1.12 @ 7:30AM

Bill, I understand your points about Santorum, but Romney is at least equally flawed, which is why we haven't had any candidate catch fire this year. If Rick Perry could string two coherent sentences together, we would be in much better shape, but the fact is that he can't. Gingrich is brilliant, but lacks focus and let's face it. He's Gingrich. Paul is terrific on domestic policy and finance, but he sounds and looks like the kid who got beat up a lot on the playground. His foreign policy is terrifying, but not nearly as terrifying as his supporters. See Post-American above. Then we have Mitt Romney, who has demonstrated no core principles and only won one election. He has lost 3 out of 4 times he has run for office and didn't stand for re-election in Massachusetts (what a hard state to spell) 'cause he was gonna lose. His inability to lock up the Republican nomination certainly doesn't bode well for his broad appeal as a candidate. Frankly, it seems we don't have anyone with broad appeal running for president this year. Thank God for high gas prices. That should slow the economy of not only the U.S., but the world down. If we enter another recession this year, it will be very tough for BHO, but if we don't, I am concerned for our success potential.

Bob From District 9| 3.16.12 @ 11:48AM

My God! I never believed I would see any right winger admit, in public, that he wants to see this country, and the world in recession just to beat Obama.

You have just admitted it's not his policies you abhor, but what he is personally. Is it his race? His party? Or just the fact that it's actually possible that raising your taxes just might be what this country needs?

By clearly stating your preference that Americans suffer the ravages of another recession, with all the increased debt that will bring on this nation, and lives destroyed, rather than have Obama actually solve the nation's problems, you reveal yourself for what you are.

OTOH, the name you chose alone strongly indicates you are a bigot, you are just confirming it with your statement.

Your success potential will be enhanced by inflicting suffering on millions of Americans, not to mention others throughout the world? Just when was it you sold your soul?

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.1.12 @ 2:10PM

From The Hill:

Romney has opened up an 11-point national lead in the latest Gallup five-day rolling average of polls.

Romney is at 35 percent in that poll, which spans Feb. 25 to Feb. 29. Santorum is in second place at 24 percent, followed by Gingrich at 15 percent, and Paul at 11 percent.

The situation didn’t look so bright for Romney as recently as a week ago, as Santorum shot to the top of the pack after a surprising three-state sweep in the Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri caucuses.   On Feb. 20, Santorum led Romney in the Gallup national poll 36 percent to 26, and held a sizable lead in Michigan as well.
  The two have been moving in opposite directions since then.   

Zak Klemmer| 3.1.12 @ 8:32PM

Don't blame me, I voted for Ron Paul.

Bob From District 9| 3.16.12 @ 11:49AM

Ron Paul is a fruit cake, but an honest one.

The others are fruit cakes, or hate spewers, and dishonest as well.

Dai Alanye| 3.1.12 @ 2:26PM

Why does Stalin keep beating his propaganda drum for a confirmed loser? Only huge amounts of money have kept Romney in this race, as the close result in Michigan proves. And Romney's funds won't be enough come November.

Stalin is still distorting the Romneycare cost vs Medicare Part D. Yes, Part D is more expensive than Romneycare in ONE STATE. But wait until Romney brings us Obamneycare in fifty states, which he apparently plans to do. The cost will be monumental.

To win this fall we need a conviction candidate, not a fake conservative and three-time loser.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.1.12 @ 3:01PM

Losers don't attract a lot of money. Your reasoning is reversed. He got those huge amounts of money precisely because he is a winner.

As far as Romneycare it hasn't been a success. It's been changed several times since passage and technically it's no longer Romneycare. Romney claims he will end Obamacare.

By the way, once again, it's Santorum who is comparing Medicare to Romneycare. You apparently think anyone who does that is stupid so you must think Santorum is stupid.

As far as conservatives that's a phony issue. There never has been a real one. As far as conviction yours apparently doesn't go that deep because you don't have the facts. That's where real conviction lies.

Mike| 3.1.12 @ 6:47AM

Bill, I enjoy reading what you have to say. However, you are wrong about the polling. According to RealClear's average, Obama is +4 over Romney and +5 over Santorum, basically a tie. Santorum has a much higher upside than Romney (and probably a much bigger downside as well). However, if Santorum wins, I know he will do what he said he will do. Romney does not have that strength (one of his principle advisors is John-"David Souter will make a great Supreme Court Justice"-Sununnu, for crying out loud).
The proof will be in the pudding, but I believe Santorum has a better chance of beating Obama, and he will certainly be a more conservative and consistent president than Romney.

Respectfully,

Mike

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.1.12 @ 7:43AM

If you break those polls down only one Republican shows any equality with Obama and that's Romney.
Rasmussen has him +1 and USA Today, a liberal rag, has them tied.

POST American| 3.1.12 @ 7:12AM

74% of ALLLLLL donations from our serving
military are going to RON PAUL.

Polls have 80% of the American public calling
for the audit, prosecution and abolishment of
the ILLEGAL 'Federal' Reserve.

Capstone EUGENIST 'Big Pharma' and
'Big Agra' are poisoning us ---and giggling

The Fukishima melt down and fallout
cover up continues in the capstone 'press'

Jeff 'I-Meltdown' disses Japan, and dances
TAX FREE building dirty plants worldwide
---some even at OUR expense

QE 3 ---is 'in the works'

RED China receivership ---is 'on the way'

"RON PAUL ---is--- the minister in the
whorehouse."
-LEW ROCKWELL

-------And America's the crack whore who's
going down for the third time.

SO keep a goin' ---just keep a goin'

--------BAR-Rockefeller OBAMA

------------------or 'SUB--Mitt ROME--knee'

----------------------------Just keep a goin'. . .

L. Ross| 3.1.12 @ 7:35AM

Sir, I find you to be incoherent. BAR-Rockefeller OBAMA? What does that mean? What does an earthquake and tidal wave in Japan have to do with this election cycle? Or do you think that was rigged to? Or are you convinced that a nuclear reactor malfunction half a world away is going to destroy us? Sir, I honestly decypher your meaning here.

L. Ross| 3.1.12 @ 7:54AM

sorry, last sentence is missing a "can't".

Vern Crisler| 3.1.12 @ 9:16AM

Don't even try to understand Paulistas. They give a bad name to tin-foil hat wearers.

Occam's Tool| 3.1.12 @ 5:13PM

Mr. Ross:

I find your attempting to engage in rational discussion with the Ronulans to be touching; a sign of decency long past.

They don't deserve it, sir.

Bob From District 9| 3.16.12 @ 12:13PM

"74% of ALLLLLL donations from our serving
military are going to RON PAUL."

In 2004 the Marine Times published a survey showing 70% of the military serving in Iraq thought we should be out in 1 year.

Again and again the civilian leadership has ignored the recommendations of the professionals. They know better.

Interesting that of the four, Ron Paul is the only one against the wars, and the only one who served in the military. He was a doctor, but he did wear the uniform, with the accompanying requirement he go where he is sent.

Romney and Gingrich are both chicken hawks who supported the war but never served. Send others off to fight and bleed and die.

Santorum also never served, but he was too young for the Vietnam war, and too old any of the later wars.

Oh, and Gingrich and Romney have the French connection Kerry was criticized for. Romney probably speaks French better than Kerry does.

Tanguera| 3.1.12 @ 7:32AM

Romney has two major problems: RomneyCare, and the fact that he doesn't even sound convinced about what he is saying. Despite what Obama says, I know how he will govern...far to the left. When Romney speaks, I haven't a clue how he will govern. Thus, he has a major trust problem in addition to RomneyCare. Perhaps that is by design by his handlers and strategists. Or, is he just a sacrificial lamb this year against what will be a brutal campaign waged by the Obama machine and the MSM. Perhaps no one told Romney that he is being used, which would explain why the establishment would run him instead of a highly credible and competent pair, Ryan and Rubio. Otherwise, makes no sense. Romney, with RomneyCare around his neck, seems like a bad GOP joke.

Mike| 3.1.12 @ 7:50AM

hear, hear. Ryan, Rubio, and I would add Jindahl. Any one of those guys would help me sleep better at night.

Mike

loulou| 3.1.12 @ 12:26PM

For the umpteenth time: Neither Rubio nor Jindal are NATURAL BORN US citizens. Both are NATIVE BORN US citizens. Both Rubio and Jindal were born BEFORE their parents became US citizens and therefore ineligible to be POTUS.

Just because Obama has major eligibility issues don't think the Democrat/Soros party will allow an ineligible candidate to become POTUS.

Mike Hawk| 3.1.12 @ 7:02PM

Once more, you are full of crap.

Bob From District 9| 3.16.12 @ 12:15PM

As much as I despise both, you are way out in left field. (Insult intended)

If they are born in the US they are natural born citizens. Live with it.

Bob From District 9| 3.16.12 @ 12:14PM

Jindahl the anchor baby?

Drake| 3.1.12 @ 8:55AM

Santorum and Gingrich have Medicare Drugs around their necks which is no better.

Too bad we have a bunch of posers and nothing like a Reagan this time.

g wayne| 3.1.12 @ 9:39AM

Drake, do you think for a minute that had Mitt Romney been in the senate durning the Bush years that he would not have supported Medicare part D, no child left behind and nearly everything else that most republicans at the time supported? Ask yourself, would Mitt be of the Scott Brown, Maine twins, McCain type or the Jim Demint type? If we are being honest with ourselves I think we know the answer to that. Ann Coulter and others can support Mitt because they think he is the most electable, but don't tell me this guy is a conservative. He is not.

Drake| 3.1.12 @ 10:05AM

Would Santorum or Gingrich have not signed a Healthcare law in MA? Both have flirted with mandates before. Simply vetoing legislation in MA wouldn't work - the Democrats would eventually override with something even worse.

loulou| 3.1.12 @ 12:29PM

Santorum would not have supported socialized medicine and I suspect neither would have Newt.

As governor Romney could have shown leadership and shown the lefties how socialism does not work. Romney is a statist. The lefties played him like a fiddle.

Drake| 3.1.12 @ 12:35PM

What is Medicare D if not socialized medicine?

Dai Alanye| 3.1.12 @ 2:30PM

Slight praise, perhaps, but Part D does have one good point-- it's the only major entitlement that has come through under-budget.

Bob From District 9| 3.16.12 @ 12:16PM

Part D had no real budget. It is an unfunded mandate. All it's costs are added to the debt.

Renaissance Nerd| 3.1.12 @ 10:36AM

Remember that the original 'RomneyCare' blueprint came from the Heritage Foundation. It's original plan was conservative. It has been changed in many ways since, but it is the forerunner of 'ObamaCare' in one important way: it's a petite-fascist stalking horse. Romney (and Heritage) should've known that the petite-fascist who for some reason call themselves Democrats wouldn't leave it alone. Just need the camel's nose under the tent, and it gave it to them. Just as 'ObamaCare' is the leading edge of what the petite-fascsists want, 'RomneyCare' gave them the ability to tack on all sorts of nifty new mandates and screw up its original design until it does not resemble the original plan at all. They will use any leverage they can get to turn citizens into subjects. Romney (and Reagan, and both Presidents Bush) made the mistake of believing that Democrats are honorable patriots who mean well. In Reagan's case, there were still a few, but they mostly died out in th 80s. The Democratic Party has always been a vote-buying syndicate, literally from the very beginning when they called themselves Anti-Federalists. They push a few idealists into the front-man spot to provide cover, but at heart they are still Tammany Hall, still handing out money to immigrants as they disembark, which practice started in the 1790s and in part prompted the Alien and Sedition Acts. The problem for Republicans is realizing that while there are some nice, deluded people who vote Democratic, the Party is just a criminal enterprise and always has been. Look at Obama--supposedly a Marxist true-believer, but look at the fruits: corruption and payoffs to his friends.

The real question is: did Romney learn his lesson in Mass? Or does he still think Dems are nice folks that are honest and well-meaning but just a bit mistaken? Does he know that any nice, honest, well-meaning Democrat is also a dupe?

DPH| 3.1.12 @ 12:33PM

Agreed! Each candidate has historical skeletons that will continue to rattle loudly. The country's salvation will be revealed when running mates are announced. Romney requires a conservative with absolute integrity (Ryan, Bachmann, Palin). Santorum requires someone with tiny government bonafides and demonstrated medium-sized business experience (not sure, but not Rubio; not a natural born citizen). This extended primary process is expensive, but good for the electorate and the candidates, as long as the bulk of the focus is on BO.
Any of the GOP candidates have a superior vision and the experience to fix the train wreck that is our country at present.

Dai Alanye| 3.1.12 @ 2:33PM

I'd bet a button or two that Romney will pick a RINO or Rand Paul as VP. He can't help it, his natural tilt is either to the left or to make a payoff.

DPH| 3.1.12 @ 3:27PM

I could get behind a Rand Paul VP.
Dr, conservative, Fed constrainer...

Bob From District 9| 3.16.12 @ 12:18PM

"Romney requires a conservative with absolute integrity (Ryan, Bachmann, Palin). "

You really do hate this country, don't you.

Bob From District 9| 3.16.12 @ 12:20PM

"Despite what Obama says, I know how he will govern...far to the left. "

Obama is a centrist. He only appears far to the left to those far to the right.

Tanguera| 3.1.12 @ 8:07AM

Also, it has occurred to me in the last few days of hearing Romney on the campaign trail that one of the reasons the establishment may have wanted Romney to be crowned the nominee early on is that he *sounds* like such an unconvincing candidate. He's an elitist completely unable to speak with conviction about anything. And how many times has this guy stepped in it (e.g., I know some NASCAR owners)? Could this also be why the establishment is trying to wrap it up? He seems exactly like Obama, who at least has a teleprompter to blame for sounding unconvincing. The Roves, Coulters, etc. simply do not realize the damage they are doing to the GOTV issue by trying to spin Romney's inevitability. Very off-putting. Not to mention how the Republican leadership has been unable and/or unwilling to articulate and fight hard against what we can see: a power hungry Marxist in the White House. Don't want to appear racist, you know. Finally, I have a theory that the point of the, ahem, flash mobs is to be a warning to congress not to buck Obama; wouldn't want to be responsible for violence on the streets, you know... We are on our own.

john dubose| 3.1.12 @ 8:14AM

Once one of these guys actually wins it, the Republicans will mostly unite. ( even the Paul supporters ) Then it will be close depending on the state of the economy. Swing voters just do not pay attention till the last few weeks.

Clint| 3.1.12 @ 8:27AM

That's The Crap Sandwich The RINO-CINO Arlen Specter/Johnny McCain School Of The Lesser Evil Tried To Sell Conservatives The Last Time.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To Super Tuesday.

Mike Hawk| 3.1.12 @ 11:37AM

What do you care?? You're a Bob (with one 'o') Casey supporter.

Occam's Tool| 3.1.12 @ 5:15PM

Yes, but you, sir, are a Ronulan, not a Tea Party member. Tea Party members don't support Bradley Manning; Ronulans do.

elgordo| 3.1.12 @ 9:25AM

ROMNEY WON MICHIGAN BY 7% OVER SANTORUM

In the Michigan Primary, if you subtract the crossover democrats voting reublican, then Romney wins by 7% over Santorum, not 3%.

mjs_pa| 3.1.12 @ 10:29AM

If you subtract the 53% support romney got in NH from independents and democrats, he lost.

romney's campaign fought for an open primary in MI. romney himself cross voted in MA against his liberal buddy Ted Kennedy.

If MI hadn't allowed early voting to begin a month ahead of the primary, Santorum would have won. He polled higher on the day of the primary by 10%.

carolb| 3.1.12 @ 1:53PM

Actually that's not true at all. Exit polls in NH showed that Romney was actually helped with the independents not the democrats. Huntsman and Paul actually pulled in the large democratic votes. Romney won NH without the democratic vote and pulled in the largest majority of republican voters. You should check your facts before you post false information.

Lee| 3.1.12 @ 9:52AM

It will be over when the big winner take all states of New York and california vote. Gee,wonder who they will vote for? Sorry,we are stuck with Romney.

loulou| 3.1.12 @ 12:30PM

So you want to surrender this early in the process?

Reed| 3.1.12 @ 10:01AM

Quin. You forget that you have to compete everywhere. Yeah,Romney will lose Oklahoma,Georgia and Tennessee. You know what though? He will still collect some delegates there. Virginia will be his,as Newt and Rick are not on the ballot. Mass and Vermont will be his too. As will Idaho(the second largest % of LDS in America)and Alaska(they like Rino's,see Murkowski and Ted Stevens). Rick also is not on the ballot in some congressional districts in Ohio,meaning Mitt will probably even if he loses the state,get more delegates from it. North Dakota? Not sure. Seems like a Santorum state,though Romney will also get delegates from it.
Going on,no doubt Santorum will win GA,AL,MS and LA. Also no doubt Romney will win DC,MD,Virgin Islands,Guam,North Mariana,Puerto Rico. Kansas will also be a Santorum state,I think.

loulou| 3.1.12 @ 12:31PM

VA will be Romney's??
Not so fast. Conservative Virginians will be voting for Ron Paul.

smokedaddy| 3.1.12 @ 4:43PM

Good analysis, tho I suspect Paul might pick up Alaska and agree with Quin that Georgia will be Newt's last hurrah. However he'll have funds to stay in from his sugardaddy so here's hoping Newt's sense of contributing to history overrides his his ego and he endorses Santorum sooner rather than later. I suspect Texas will go big for Santorum, NY will split with upstate going Santorum & NY city going Romney. NJ shud go Romney. California is winner take all for each its 55 congressional districts. Yes, my state is largely Romney friendly within the party. But, keep in mind Santorum will pick up support in inland CDs and maybe in heavy Dem CDs in LA and Bay area from crossover Dems if that's allowed. Also, this hasn't really been tested yet but I suspect Santo may play better with hispanics given his background and Romney's hawkishness on immigration. If Santo plays it right and skillfully he could win big in Texas and pick up maybe 50 of Cali's 172 delegates. Wisconsin will also be key as its the one true winner take all primary where Santo's got a good shot.

gearjammer| 3.1.12 @ 10:22AM

The only reason Santorum is around is social issue fanaticism. Now, if he an Mitt were going at each over best to deal with budget deficeit or growth or energy or whatever-fine. This debate would bring down Obama. Now he has a free lunch actually bragging about a record that is garbage. Remember when 6 per cent unemployment was a politicl death sentence A 200 million dollar deficeit huge trouble. When do we start cracking the thin ice this preposterous dude is skating on ? Santorum is going on about the amio whatever test ? Would he excommunicate a women for having one ? That is where this dope is taking us. I am telling you this is gonna be a close race-electoral college anyone. Romney had a shot, a good one in NH and even the upper half of Maine. A handful of elec votes but I bet it gives the Obama crew nightmares. Wake up people. Check the DOB of your supreme court faves. I am in New England. People like Mitt. They find his rich guy cluckiness endearing " alot of my friends own Nascar teams". Hey, that's Mitt-kind of authentic, actually.

Dai Alanye| 3.1.12 @ 2:37PM

The only reason Romney is around is major money bags. Mitt is a three-time loser despite his fortune, let's not forget that.

gearjammer| 3.1.12 @ 4:02PM

The gipper lost a few. And, the fabulous Rick got beat by a cigar store wooden Indian. Oh yeah, he had this dangling gord by his mouth that if you pulled it a recording would say " me pro life too, me pro life too". That beat the FABULOUS RICK by 20 in his home state. Do you have a job ?

mjs_pa| 3.1.12 @ 10:36AM

Tom Brokaw: Santorum "Like A Character In A Bruce Willis Movie"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqEMGjHPI00

I hope both Quin and Brokaw are right and Rick has the moxie to dog romney the whole way to the convention.

loulou| 3.1.12 @ 12:33PM

I'm not going to watch the video because I find Brokaw to be like fingers on a chalkboard but I bet he thought be was insulting Santorum.

Rick sure does have moxie.

Nick| 3.1.12 @ 10:39AM

Santorum can keep going on. He can even keep winning some states. All cute and really nice. Romney will be the nominee. Maybe he will make Santorum Ambassador to Bulgaria or something.

Edward G| 3.1.12 @ 11:56AM

No way in hell Santorum comes close in California. He will lose by at least 15 points.

loulou| 3.1.12 @ 12:34PM

IF Romney wins the nomination he will lose CA but at least 20 points.

gearjammer| 3.1.12 @ 4:04PM

Rick loses it by 60-so he totally lost in Nevada or New Mexico or Colorado.

David| 3.1.12 @ 1:03PM

Both Mitt and Newt have supported the individual mandate for health insurance for many years.

Santorum never has.

Both Mitt and Newt have bought into the global warming baloney, and all of the economy strangling regs and restrictions that come with it.

Santorum never has.

Both Mitt and Newt have supported the Wall Street bailouts.

Santorum never has.

By all ratings from conservative groups, Newt comes out only SLIGHTLY more conservative than Rick based on their votes over many years in Congress.

What is important is their very public positions on issues since leaving office.

Santorum gets the conservative nod on that hands down.

Santorum repeatedly said he WILL support a National Right to WOrk Act as prez.

As to social issues, the vast majority of voters agree with Santorum. I wish he would tone down some of it (like how his college statements can be mistrued or blatantly lied about what he actually meant. But most voters do agree that there is a continuing moral rot in this country.

I will never forget Scarborough's article in Politico which shows how Gingrich encouraged the very conservative reps to BREAK the contract with America. Steve Largent's lecture to the mainstream repubs (LED BY NEWT) said it all.

I can't speculate as to who will win or come close in this or that state. I just know that Santorum will continue to bust his butt to win. Always the BIG underdog and except for once, always a winner.

The big question for all voters is, based on all the candidates votes while holding office, and their very public positions since leaving office, WHO DO YOU TRUST TO DO WHAT HE SAYS HE WILL DO AS PREZ???

I don't know how any fair observer of the political scene over the course of the candidates' lives can come to any other answer than SANTORUM IS THE ONE WHO CAN BE TRUSTED!!!

Wm. Gillham | 3.1.12 @ 1:28PM

Gingrich is the only worthy successor to Reagan. He has more understanding of our history, more
experience, more policy vision, more command of the facts, more speaking and debating skills. Santorum's rabid views on contraception, abortion, stem cells, right to die, etc is poison.

micki| 3.1.12 @ 1:43PM

I don't know why the media seems so perplexed by all of this. Here, you say "the playing field is almost level." Just seems like a no-brainer to me because these candidates are all excellent choices, and there isn't much difference between them, and the fact is this IS a republican primary. No one candidate in a primary will get an overwhelming majority, especially when the candidates are all so very close on all of the issues.

Bill| 3.1.12 @ 1:46PM

I MISS RICK PERRY..............a man of the "Tenth Amendment."

HighlanderJuan| 3.1.12 @ 1:51PM

I see only three problems with this analysis: the huge GOP election fraud problem in these primaries and caucuses, the huge disparity between what the GOP country club elites want for candidate and what the American people want for candidates, and the continual dissing of highly successful candidate Ron Paul.

Of the four remaining candidates in the GOP race, two are ineligible for the office (that would be Rick and Mitt), two are not registered in all fifty states (that would be Newt and Rick), leaving only one candidate who is both eligible and registered in all fifty states (that would be Ron Paul).

As should be noted clearly and definitively, there is only one candidate who would restore the Constitution, reduce the size and expense of the federal government, stabilize our money system, reduce our unnecessary military presence worldwide, protect American sovereignty, and challenge the new world order elites. That would be Ron Paul.

I have been to one Ron Paul event, and the mixed age group of supporters was massive, and enthusiastic, about the ideas Ron Paul discusses. No candidate other than Paul can boast they have support from informed patriotic Americans - because they don't.

Dai Alanye| 3.1.12 @ 2:42PM

Let's remember that America's least effective Congressman gets half his primary votes from Democrats. There simply aren't enough silly Republicans to elect RonPaul.

Occam's Tool| 3.1.12 @ 5:18PM

Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum all have informed patriotic Americans supporting them.

Ronulans support a guy who supports Bradley Manning, American traitor.

Bill| 3.1.12 @ 1:53PM

Super Tuesday prediction:
Romney: winning MA, ID, ND, VT, AK, and VA (benefiting from the absence of Gingrich and Santorum)
Santorum: biggest prize of OH, then snatching OK and TN, from Gingrich's home turf
Gingrich: Georgian will not disappoint their home-boy, yet he;s a soldier, "don't die just fade away"
Ron Paul: fierce competition in VA and AK over delegates, yet Romney will bag both of those states
Winner: Willard Mitten Romney

David| 3.1.12 @ 1:56PM

The problem is highlander, America will be taken over by its enemies with Ron Paul in office. There will be no constitution for Paul to save. Come on, the fruitcake believes that we should have arrested and tried bin Laden???!!!!

He is a Libertarian - that is right next to an anarchist.

HighlanderJuan| 3.1.12 @ 2:08PM

David - I find it interesting that you view the act of abiding by the Constitution as being threatening to the security of the United States. I would disagree and tell you that the main reasons why we are in the middle of a depression, with a painfully over-extended military, and with no hope in sight is simply because we are NOT abiding by our own laws, including our Constitution.

HighlanderJuan| 3.1.12 @ 2:33PM

David - We have already been taken over by our enemies. If you believe that our country is healthy and successful, rather than in the process of being systematically destroyed by the progressives and one worlders in Washington, then you need to run a sanity check on your own beliefs and understandings.

Lynn Otting| 3.1.12 @ 2:03PM

The Republican Party seems to vote based on meaningless poll results and ridiculous media analysis. If the goal is to beat President O’bama, then Republicans need to rethink their basis for choosing Santorum or Romney. Santorum will not beat President O’bama in the general election. Independents will not vote for him. Regardless of how hard he tries, he cannot separate government and religion from his speeches or beliefs. His ideas are not that bold and his record proves he cannot fight the Washington establishment to get a job done. He is the perfect candidate for President O’bama’s “Republicans are against contraceptives not religious freedom” campaign. Romney communicates conservative values by memorization. Romney has no ideas that he truly believes, so rather than argue a position, he ridicules his opponents. He is the perfect candidate for President O'bama's “tax the elite one percent” campaign. Newt has done more to advance the cause of conservatism than anyone of the candidates in this presidential race. He not only ended 40 years of Democratic control in the House, he ended Democratic control of southern states like Georgia too. More importantly, his record proves he achieved the goals he set. His ideas are about more than conservative values, they are about American principles. His economic plan for energy independence will create jobs and lower the debt by trillions over the next generation. Republicans should not give this election away by voting for anyone other than Newt. It is too important, not to him, but to all Americans.

Bill| 3.1.12 @ 2:43PM

What if.................
President: Mitt Romney
VP: Chris Christie
I'm loving it!

MPPB| 3.1.12 @ 10:05PM

Both of these twits want to index the minimum
wage to the cost of living which is a great policy
if you're in favor of unemployment and inflation.

David| 3.1.12 @ 2:43PM

Lynn, this is what you wrote: " The Republican Party seems to vote based on meaningless poll results and ridiculous media analysis."

THEN, you begin to recite exactly the "ridiculous media analysis" of which you complain.

YOu have bought into the "repubs are against contraceptives" crap. No we are not - AND neither is Santorum.

As to Newt advancing conservatism, yes, he did - for a while.

Take the time to read Scarborough's article as to what happened (how the repubs lost their way when they had both Houses) in Politico a couple of week ago. You will discover that Newt led the RINO's into coercing the conservative to break the Contract with America. Sure, Newt to a lot to bring about a repub majority, and then through his actions, did a lot to bring it down.

Newt is an opportunist.

As already stated, look at Newt's and Rick's ratings from conservative groups based on their voting records while in COngress. Newt was only SLIGHTLY more conservative.

More important, is their very public positions on issues in the many years they have been out of office.

On that Santorum wins hands-down.

Yes, Newt can debate. Just how many f_cking times to I have to point out that Bam Bam will not agree to 20+ f_cking debates so Gingrich can shine.

In fact, Gingrich said he WILL NOT debate if the formats remain the same as the recent past. If they are Lincoln-Douglas format, he WILL NOT debate.

Do I think he won't really debate? NO!!! What is does show is that Newt is a "live-wire" and will say and do anything at any given moment. He is not disciplined - he is all over the map. That is from people who worked with him for years.

David| 3.1.12 @ 2:45PM

Excuse me, if they are NOT Lincoln-Douglas format, he will not debate.

Bill| 3.1.12 @ 3:32PM

Bill's favorites:
President: Ronald Reagan
Lawmakers: Jim Demint, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Michelle Bachmann, Mike Pence, Jason Chaffetz, and those of who are defending our liberty and the constitutions
Governors: All 29 "magnificent" GOP governors
Talk-radio: Three trios: Limbaugh, Levine, and Hannity
Political organization: Republican Party, the Tea Party, AIPAC, AFP
Economic structure: Supply sided free market solutions
Issues: Pro-life, Pro-Second amendment, Pro-traditional marriage, pro-free enterprise, limited government, and strong military and foreign policy

Nick| 3.2.12 @ 12:20PM

"That nigger lover President Clinton had the pen and vetoed so many good bills passed by the Gingrich-led Congress."
- Written by Bill, in the Time for Newt to Do the Honorable Thing thread:

http://spectator.org/archives/.....ent_749403

You're a moron and a racist, Bill.
GO AWAY!

Doctor Right| 3.1.12 @ 4:25PM

When RINO pundits and other fools complain about this process "dragging on" and "doing damage" to the eventual nominee, I have to laugh.

THIS IS HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO WORK!

It's democracy in action. Only the elites with their moneyed candidates want a quick-end to the primaries to prevent voters from seeing how bad the establishment-preferred candidate (Ford, Dole, McCain, Romney, etc) really is.

I love a good political brawl, and I hope it goes right up to the convention!

PL| 3.1.12 @ 5:33PM

Thank you, Doctor Right. Exactly. This is not supposed to be swift and over and done.

The one thing I would prefer is some more sanity with the pace and the modern-day trends of 6 whistlestops per day for each candidate.

Watch, one of them will pull a "Hey, folks, I love y'all here in Memphis!" while standing before a crowd of people in Knoxville. Watch. It will happen soon this kind of natural gaffe when one is just pushed from event to event, interview to interview.

When do they ever stop to reflect? To listen to the smarter (the more informed) on their campaign teams? To really examine their positions and make necessary, wise alterations?

My complaint would be that this is now all done in warp speed. Ronald Reagan might have had to admit in 1980 that the process was just to taxing on a man even as healthy as he was at that time.

I want every state to have their say. And I would have preferred that some of the others like Pawlenty were still in this.

As I posted at the outset today, there should be no obcession with a victor already and some silly notion of "rallying and unifying around that candidate."

This process forces each of these candidates (and even their handlers) to have to listen more to what real Americans in flyover country think.

They also get to see empty stores, closed restaurants, buildings with "For Lease" signs everywhere, decent people who are underemployed, and empty car sales dealerships that have nothing but tall weeds and disrepair.

AND: Right now their campaigns -- racing across states and boundaries -- are directly impacted by the huge spike in fuel costs. THIS IS A GOOD THING.

Simon Templar| 3.1.12 @ 4:36PM

Quin, have you been consulting again with your better half? Excellent, objective, useful, and researched analysis!

Quin| 3.1.12 @ 6:41PM

My goodness, two nice comments in a row from you toward me. Is one of us getting soft?
;)
Anyway, thanks. Maybe I'm not so bad after all. I really do try to be consistent....

Edward Cropper| 3.1.12 @ 5:24PM

I keep hearing from numerous poster that this or that candidate doesn't have a broad enough appeal among voters. This is just political blabber.
If "conservatives" are really "conservatives" they shouldn't care which candidate is the most appealing in the final analysis.
They should hold their nose and vote for the Republican candidate no matter who it happens to be. Your country should mean more to you than your candidate.
These cry babies who keep saying they will just stay home election day if so and so is the nominee are only insuring that the worst President in our history will have another four years to continue his destruction of the greatest country in the history of the world.
If anyone thinks President Obama will have second thoughts about his agenda and will become more "moderate", contact me I have a bridge in New York I would like to sell you.

MPPB| 3.1.12 @ 9:52PM

The only problem with this line of reasoning is that after two years democrats would probably control congress and two years after that we get eight years of Hillary Clinton.
We need to elect an actual leader,
not a warm body.

Edward G| 3.1.12 @ 6:17PM

Santa and the Tooth Fairy are more real than Santorum's chances.

Zak Klemmer| 3.1.12 @ 8:30PM

How many national elections did Jerry Ford win?

Judy| 3.2.12 @ 1:13AM

This is really silly. Obama clearly wants to run against Santorum. Could not be clearer after what was rigged in Michigan. Do you want Obama to run against the weaker candidate? You're saying that running a sure loser against Obama is preferable to running a guy with the ability to win?

Loral Orow| 3.2.12 @ 8:44AM

I really think since Mitt Romney was endorsed by every Liberal Media including the two Detroit newspapers, we should realize that it is Romney that the Democrats want to run against Obama. They endorsed him from the very beginning and have kept it up all this time, even though the MI people did not welcome him. In fact he was hugely booed at his first appearance in my area.
Santorum would be a good leader. For one and the most IMPORTANT reason, he believes in following our disappearing Constitution. Next, he's willing to fight ObamaCare, next, he's honest about the Muslim problems in this country. Our country has gone so far downhill morally that we need someone with principles to restore us. Our freedoms and values are what have attracted immigrants from our very beginning....and they are merely a shadow at this point. I have not heard Romney mention our precious Constitution at all. He does say he will do away with ObamaCare but that's really not possible for the one who wrote it under the title of Romney Care.
After a dubious win in Michigan, he has already begun to backtrack by saying he will not criticize Obama.
He is not promising to me or my friends. We want to leave future generations at least as much as we received from our Founders.

How dare our Republican committees decided to redistribute the delegates? That is just plain idiotic and not allowing the voters to have their say.

Adjoran| 3.2.12 @ 1:23AM

The problem is this theory only has a chance of holding up IF Santorum performs as predicted, winning OH, OK, and TN or some other state. Otherwise, he's probably toast. Who is going to donate?

Look at his poll numbers nationally in Gallup's 5-day moving average and Rasmussen's as well. He's dropped 12-16% in two weeks; his chart looks a lot like the rises and falls of Trump, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Gingrich earlier. Dropping like a stone going into Super Tuesday is hardly a recipe for success.

POST American| 3.2.12 @ 6:12AM

----------------BOTTOMLESS LINE--------------------

---The blackmail, strong arm and lockdown
on the utterly tame, FAKE 'Right' Fox

------the dismissal of even CNP front op
Pat 'Nick's On/ MAO' Buchanan

----------the ouster of the GENUINE Judge Napolitano

----------------and --NOW-- Brietbart. . .

YOU DECIDE

Yipppee K| 3.2.12 @ 3:46PM

All due respect to AS and its editors but this analysis misses the point. Conservatives are pretty much always doomed to run as underdogs on shoe leather and glad-handing while the Establishment candidates can calmly command nearly unlimited media exposure from their cushy campaign HQs. On the other hand, we the people prefer genuine conservatives. Establishment candidates like Ford or Romney don't ring true to us, which is why establishment types are always trying to appear conservative and we the people, on top of everything else in our busy lives have to figure out who's lying-- which of course is why establishment candidates and Democrats are always accusing conservatives of lying just to muddy the waters. And so on and so forth. The implication of these clear and obvious facts is that this is what a race between a conservative and an Establishment candidate always looks like. There's no mystery between the similarities of this race and 1976. I'm surprised that Hillyer thinks there is. What will be more interesting from a poli sci standpoint will be the differences. For instance before Obama about 16% of the voting population were government employees or dependents of government employees. Post first-term Obama that number is already up past 30% of the population. What difference will that make on the voting demographics of the nation? Another example, in 1976 we had no Rush Limbaugh, no Andrew Breitbart (RIP, friend), no Brent Bozell, no Matt Drudge. We were at the mercy of the NYT and their henchmen, Dan Brokaw, Peter Jennings and that other guy. Today, the power of that cabal is much reduced. What difference will that make on this election? Ultimately, if the people are given the space to vote their consciences honestly (not something the Establishment or Democrats wish for) the conservative will win despite all the wishful predictions of the fourth estate to the contrary.