-
McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 112 comments
-
It’s.The.Law
May 20, 2013 | 20 comments
-
The Taxman Cometh (for Tea Partiers)
May 13, 2013 | 150 comments
-
Farrell’s Fallacies
May 9, 2013 | 25 comments
-
Turning on Obama
May 7, 2013 | 228 comments
Political Hay
Santorum’s Sagging Significance
Winning only in smaller, safe Republican states won’t cut it this year.
Rick Santorum’s supporters are probably dismayed, and understandably so, at the repetition of a particular pattern: When Mitt Romney wins a race during this Republican presidential primary season, even if narrowly, it is reported as a big deal, a significant achievement. When Rick Santorum wins, even if by a wide margin, as this past Saturday, it is barely discussed, not taken very seriously by the media or by most pundits as a measure of the man’s electability or importance.
But there’s the problem with that superficial view.
Of Santorum’s 11 wins so far, only five have been in binding primary elections. His other victories have all been in caucuses and Missouri’s strange non-binding primary.
Like it or not, caucuses are viewed as less representative of how voters actually feel, and how a general election will play out. Five of Santorum’s wins are considered important from that standpoint, despite a valid argument being available to suggest that caucus wins suggest stronger intensity for a candidate.
Of Romney’s 16 victories, nine have been in primaries (though that includes Virginia, in which only he and Ron Paul were on the ballot). He’s also taken four U.S. Territory contests, of which one (Puerto Rico) was a primary.
But it’s not just the eight (excluding Virginia) to five (excluding Missouri) lead in binding primaries, nor even the 20 to 11 lead in total contests that explains why Romney is given more credit by the media and by most political analysts for his victories than Santorum receives for his.
It’s the geography and the numbers.
Santorum’s primary wins are Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. Three in the deep south, one nearly in the deep south, and one which is among the “reddest” states in America.
For perspective, here are the last times these states went for a Democrat in a presidential election:
Alabama – 1976, Louisiana – 1996, Mississippi – 1976, Oklahoma – 1964, and Tennessee – 1996.
Here are the numbers of times these states have voted for Democrats in the 15 presidential elections since 1952:
Alabama – 4, Louisiana – 5, Mississippi – 3, Oklahoma – 1, and Tennessee – 4.
In the states in which Rick Santorum has won a victory in a binding primary, the average number of times the Democrats have won the state in the last 15 presidential elections is 3.4, and the average number of presidential elections since the last Democrat victory is 7.6.
Now let’s examine the same statistics for the eight states (again excluding Virginia) in which Romney has won a primary, with the most recent year that those states have gone for the Democrat and the number of times it has done so since 1952:
Arizona: 1996 and 1, Florida: 2008 and 4, Illinois: 2008 and 7, Massachusetts: 2008 and 11, Michigan: 2008 and 8, New Hampshire: 2008 and 5, Ohio: 2008 and 5, Vermont: 2008 and 6.
About the Author
Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (127) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ross Kaminsky
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/26/santorums-sagging-significance
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.26.12 @ 7:18AM
The handwriting is on the wall for Santorum and for him to remain in the race now makes him look like a fool.
The Santorum supporters continue to insist he's a conservative and he's not. Santorum claims he took one for the team and that explains his record of supporting big government.
It's not really a very good explanation unless you believe in the tooth fairy.
Dai Alanye | 3.26.12 @ 11:58AM
Kaminsky does his usual stellar job of mis-analysing, and the Mitt-nitwits join the chorus with simple-minded distortions of fact.
According to RossKam, Santorum can't win because he's only carrying Republican states, while Mitt is a sure winner by carrying territories that have no electoral votes and many states that are a lock for the Dems come November. The illogic of this should be apparent to any rational person.
Then comes Stalin to claim that the Etch-A-Sketch candidate is a conservative, while the man who gets 'A' grades from almost all conservative rating groups is somehow not conservative. This is irrational to the point of stupidity, or perhaps simply part of a low-level propaganda effort.
At the risk of boring more than myself, here are the Santorum ratings once again:
88% from American Conservative Union
92% from National Tax Limitation Committee
92% equiv from National Taxpayers Union
94% from League of Private Property Voters
95% from Americans for Tax Reform
100% from National Right to Life
A+ from National Rifle Association
Meanwhile Stalin pushes a man who has won only a single election in his life, and that while running far to the left. Makes you wonder if he went for Hope and Change the last time, does it not?
Bill Husssein O'Stalin| 3.26.12 @ 3:00PM
If anyone is stupid it's you. Santorum already mentioned engaging in big government to "take one for the team." Perhaps you don't understand he's stupid and if you support that mentality, perhaps you're beyond stupid.
loulou| 3.26.12 @ 3:03PM
You need to be more careful about the way you toss the word "stupid" around. You're in no position to call anyone stupid, stupid.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.26.12 @ 6:04PM
Pray tell, which one of my facts was inaccurate? If they are accurate, then perhaps you're a moron because you're approaching maximum density.
Nick| 3.26.12 @ 4:15PM
Mr. O'Stalin,
Yes, Mr. Santorum said he took "one for the team."
But, you do realize that O'Romney is the captain of the team, don't you?
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.26.12 @ 6:03PM
Romney wasn't on that team. So, what's your point?
Nick| 3.26.12 @ 6:22PM
Mr. O'Stalin,
O'Romney is the captain of the big-government RINO team, now.
I didn't mean to go so far over your head. Sorry.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.26.12 @ 6:47PM
Since Romney has never been in the federal government the only one in over their head is you. Santorum's Medicare Part D dwarfs Romneycare.
Yet there you are lapping it up. Talk about over your head.
Nick| 3.26.12 @ 7:11PM
Mr. O'Stalin,
It wasn't Mr. Santorum's Medicare Part D, it was President Bush's. Gee, another lying distortion from a O'Romney supporter. What a shock!
And I'm sure O'Romney also supported Part D. He was the grandfather of O'BamaCare, remember? If you believe O'Romney is going to repeal O'BamaCare, can I sell you some beach-front property?
O'Romney is McLame 2.o. He doesn't have a conservative bone in his body. If he is the nominee, he will lose more states than McShame did. Even if he could somehow combine Sarah Palin, Chris Christie, and Rush into a super-hybrid running-mate.
Presidential electoral politics do not seem to be your forte. Leave it to the big boys, okay?
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.26.12 @ 8:19PM
So it's your contention Bush didn't need the Congress to get it passed? It gets deeper and deeper.
As far as conservatism what's your point? Santorum certainly isn't one. He had to take one for the team and help pass Medicare Part D. Even he admits that. Frankly, to deny it like you've done makes you the moron of the day.
As far as leaving something to the big boys that wouldn't be you. You're certainly not very bright.
Nick| 3.26.12 @ 8:52PM
Mr. O'Stalin,
So, it's your contention that Mr. Santorum was the only member of Congress? Medicare Part D did not pass because of Rick Santorum. Also, I never denied that he helped pass it, I stated that he took one for the team. More lying distortions.
Why do you O'Romney supporters feel the need to act like democrats and lie about your opponents?
Your contention that Mr. Santorum is not a conservative is laughable, in the extreme. Again, presidential electoral politics are not your forte.
Mr. Santorum single-handedly got the partial-birth abortion ban through the Senate. He also was in charge of Welfare Reform. Yeah, he's no conservative!
I see you can't defend O'Romney's record very well, can you? Nor, can you refute my contention that he will be worse than McLame, eh?
You never called me names when I agreed with you, in the past. What is about supporting O'Romney that brings the worst out in people?
Bill Husssein O'Stalin| 3.27.12 @ 9:22AM
You started with the insults. I just followed suit. Then you continue with the insults that somehow you know presidential politics.
The only thing obvious to me at this point is that you come off as a liberal, i.e., you can dish it out but you can't take it.
Nick| 3.27.12 @ 4:38PM
El wrongo, Mr. O'Stalin. Go check the record.
"It's not really a very good explanation unless you believe in the tooth fairy."
This was a minor slight against supporters of Mr. Santorum (although, you have made worse comments, in the past.) And, so was my comment about talking over your head, after you feigned ignorance of the point I was making.
But, like a typical O'Romney supporter you immediately started escalating the personal attacks. It appears it is you who dishes it out, but can't take it. I treat people with the same respect I am given.
Again, you have nothing positive to say about your pathetic candidate, so, all you can do is trash his opponents, and their supports. Precisely as the liberals do.
How sad.
Physician, heal thyself.
It's A Cunning Plan Actually!| 3.26.12 @ 3:52PM
You're right 100%, but you're wasting your time. Too many have bought into the "only Romney is electable" & "Romney is inevitable" b.s. the left, the Democrats, & The Stupid Party hoped we would all fall for. Romney is not electable, but he is certainly inevitable. An inevitable electoral loss that is. Take care & trust God, not the Stupid Party.
Oldefarte| 3.26.12 @ 4:24PM
Well I guess many of us are in your catagory of 'Mitt-nitwits' even though I previously voted for Newt in Alabama and DO NOT HAVE A HORSE IN THIS RACE NOW THAT GINGRICH IS ESSENTIALLY OUR OF THE RUNNING FOR THE NOMINATION! If we don't HAVE A TINGLE UP OUR COOLECTIVE PANTS LEGS FOR THE RICKSTER AS YOU APPARENTLY DO SO, then we're automatically lumped into the FOR MITT CAMP IN YOUR DELUDED MINDSET, huh? We'll let me set you straight by saying that you're FOS in my case [and probably universally so in Ross' etc case as well]! As I've said many times, I'll [along with most other conservatives and Republicans] will vote for the eventual Republican nominee, whether it be Mitt or the Rick. However I'll tell you and others here WITH YOUR TINGLES FOR THE RICKSTER, that I'll demand/insist upon [before I ever vote for Santorum for POTUS] HIS SINCERE/TOTAL APOLOGY FOR BREAKING REAGAN'S 11TH COMMANDMENT SUPREMELY BY EQUATING THE REPUBLICAN ROMNEY WITH THAT SLEAZY WORTHLESS SOS NOW OCCUPYING THE WHITE HOUSE AND SOCIALISITICALLY DESTROYING THIS COUNTRY. That to me and others was inexcusable and unforgivable! It's one thing to rightfully disagree and counter-argue a fellow Republican opponent but a whole different thing to say that same is no different and no better than that group of socialists now controlling our government. To do so was a GD filthy lie of the worst kind and personally I hope he burns in political hades for doing so!!!!!!!!!!
Al Adab| 3.26.12 @ 6:21PM
Just wait until the DEM attack machine lights into Mormon theology and the role of women. If you think the contraception "controversy" was anything, it was just practice for what is to come. It will not be pretty.
aware| 3.26.12 @ 7:22AM
Only thing for sure this November, The Evil Party has never been more evil and the Stupid Party has never been more stupid. And, of course, the American sheep herd has never been more screwed.
Jack in Wi.| 3.26.12 @ 7:48AM
Few people want Romney, except the braindead remnant of Bush-Rockefeller Republicans, and Mormons. That is why the the Republican party is down to about 25% of the population. The number of people voting in these primaries is pathetic. Obama and Romney both are two sides of the same coin. Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain, Romney are good reasons to dump the whole Republican Party once and for all. We lose even if romney is elected. What did he do in Massacusetts that improved the state to any degree? With Romneycare, his pro-abortion stand, and his willing aquesence in gay marriage why should conservatives bother to vote for him? Chicken hawk warmongers like Mitt, Newt and Rick will make Obama look like a sane peace nick. He will win again Shame on us conservatives for buying what these guys are selling.
aware| 3.26.12 @ 5:51PM
"Conservatives" make a lot of noise but they never gave us smaller government. The remedy will require much more radical candidates than seen so far.
Clint| 3.26.12 @ 7:56AM
Obama Supported TARP,While Romney Supported TARP.
Obama Orchestrated ObamaCare, But Romney Orchestrated RomneyCare.
The Tea Party Heads To An Open Convention.
Oldefarte| 3.26.12 @ 4:28PM
Fool, THATS A GD LIE AND YOU KNOW IT! TELL THE GD TRUTH! Romney has stated that he supported the original TARP of the former administration, not the subsequent auto bailout-labor union bailouts of Obama. You're a lying SOS but what else in new from a MEDIA MATTERS HUMJOBBER!!!!!!!!
Clint| 3.26.12 @ 7:18PM
Duuuuuhhhhh !
Romney RINO-CINO Fool, You're An Argument Against Yourself.
Fart Face Says, " Romney has stated that he supported the original TARP of the former administration,"
Now Tell Us About RomneyCare, RINO-CINO Romney Flunkie Stooge, Four Years Older Than Dirt Man.
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To An Open Convention.
Appleby| 3.26.12 @ 8:03AM
Face it, chum, you hate Santorum because he's Catholic and when HE says he's Catholic, he demonstrates that he means REAL Catholic, not the thin plastic film over screaming compromising liberalism that Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden mean when they use that very important word.
And by the way, if the Mormon religion is in fact Christian, why is Romney taking such pains to conceal his Mormonism from the general Republican public, of which a sizeable percentage is Christian and uses Christian values to inform their choices? Everybody knows where Santorum stands vis-a-vis Christianity. Nobody knows where Romney stands...and clearly there's a reason for that.
W| 3.26.12 @ 8:11AM
What is the evidence that Kaminsky hates Santorum because he is Catholic?
What is the evidence that Romney is hiding his religion? Maybe he just doesn not flaunt it like others. He did donate over 3 million dollars last year to his religion, and he donated every cent he inherited from his father to Brigham Young in the memory of his father,George Romney.
Jack in Wi.| 3.26.12 @ 8:32AM
I don't think Ross dislikes Santorum because he is Catholic. He likes Romney because he is another Wall Streeter, just like himself. Birds of a feather flock together. Santorum is totally unelectable. There is some chance that Romney could be elected. There is no chance that Santorum can be. I have been involved in the pro-life movement for over 30 years. I never have believed that Santorum would do much if he was in office. Anyone who supported people like Spector and Whitman is no real pro-lifer. As a Catholic myself, I am disgusted by his consistant and nasty warmongering. You can't be pro-life and be a warmonger.
L. Ross| 3.26.12 @ 12:03PM
Hey, I'm a pro-life warmonger. And I support the death penalty. Unborn babies haven't demonstrated that they need killin'. Some adults have. Simple as that.
gearjammer| 3.26.12 @ 9:54AM
Romney has done quite well among voters who happen to be Catholic,
santorum has done better against " real Catholics". There are fewer and fewer real Catholics as you define them. Your world is withering on the vine, face it and be pragmatic.
Appleby| 3.26.12 @ 11:01AM
That sounds quite a lot like "When rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it."
gearjammer| 3.26.12 @ 12:57PM
No stupid-try this. You are starving and I offer you a loaf of rye bread and you say I want whole wheat. I say the rye is pretty good and you say I'd rather starve to death.
Nick| 3.26.12 @ 6:57PM
Except, Gearjammer, you are trying to push the same moldy loaf of rye that was pushed on us four years ago.
Why shouldn't I want the fresh loaf of wheat?
The four year old, moldy-oldy, will only make us all sick.
vtwin| 3.26.12 @ 11:08AM
Anti-Catholic? No, when it comes to religion or social morality Ross is ambivalent. It’s about money.
W| 3.26.12 @ 11:26AM
What is social morality?
Dai Alanye | 3.26.12 @ 12:00PM
Correct. Kaminsky favors the man he admires, the man with the big bucks.
Seek| 3.26.12 @ 1:13PM
Why is it important for a candidate to run on his religion? It shouldn't be an issue. This is precisely why the Framers sought to avoid such entanglements.
Seek = Stupid Liberal| 3.26.12 @ 6:35PM
Why do you lie and state you are a conservative?
Why are you stupid and disregard the words of the Framers themselves?
Why are you an idiot even when your stupid lies are exposed day after day week after week month after month?
Why will you not reveal what academic field your 'PhD' is in?
"Providence has given our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers"
- John Jay
"Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principles"
- George Washington
Seek| 3.27.12 @ 12:40PM
Personally, I think you're a psychopath. And if you actually believe I'm going to divulge any details about my personal or professional life, you are more nuts than I thought.
News flash: Conservatives don't think identically. Neither, in fact, did the Founders. Go harass someone else.
News Flash| 3.27.12 @ 1:21PM
Who divulged the personal and professional detail that you have a PhD?
Is the issue of the importance for a candidate to run on religion precisely because the Framers sought candidates who are Christian as their duty and in their interest in order to expect a moral nation as sane people precisely why these Framers sought to avoid such issues of importance entanglements as sane people with different thoughts more nuts than you thought sanely?
Stop harassing reason and experience with more nuts than you thought.
Oldefarte| 3.26.12 @ 4:10PM
Wow shazam.....A REAL CATHOLIC? Do you mean one that turns his spouse into a walking zombie from having multiple children, one right after the other [talk about enslavement]; or possibly one that sits idly [and saying NOTHING]by while Catholic clergy are raping children under their care, resulting in thousands of lawsuits and loss of Church property from the legal settlements from same. Shazam that's a real GOOD CATHOLIC, a possibly a DUMBARS CATHOLIC [along with the millions of other such Catholics doing nothing, saying nothing, accompolishing nothing toward remedying this pedifilia within the Catholic priesthood/brotherhood worldwide], huh????????
Ted| 3.27.12 @ 12:07PM
You lack knowledge. While there were some cases of pedophilia, the scandal was a scandal of homosexual men preying on adolescent males. The John Jay Report data proves this.
rightasrain| 3.26.12 @ 8:27AM
While his significance sags, his temper and petulance increase. Santorum looks less presidential every day. Witness his recent fit of pique toward a reporter on a rope line yesterday. I don't think the evangelicals will cotton to his use of the word "bullshit."
Jabber3| 3.26.12 @ 9:21AM
Santorum has already lost as I stated before because he does not have the credentials, the capability to raise the required funding , lacks the organization to run an effective campaign, lacks a coherent message and he has a loser mentality. I have no objection to his remaining in the race as long as he portrays a reasonableness and doesn't behave like a desperate unhinged candidate.
Ted| 3.26.12 @ 9:25AM
An interesting article. Here's some more food for thought. The states where Romney has been strongest (in the Northeast, in Illinois, and probably California - I only say probably because they haven't had their primary yet) will almost certainly be won by Obama in the Fall... And Florida is a bit of a toss up. The states where Romney has run the weakest are traditional conservative voting states.
So it is rather an intersting bit of irony to say that Ronmey has sewn this thing up by winning states that he will probably not win in the fall and dismissing the states he will have to win to be successful.
rightasrain| 3.26.12 @ 10:53AM
Romney will take every state Santorum won and at least give us a chance in FL, VA and OH.
richard ryan| 3.26.12 @ 9:28AM
Well, I've listened to all the arguments for and against Gov. Romney. I've been on the Cain Train, also took a good look at Newt, and I like Santorum's courage and hard work.
Now I'm ready to support Romney. He's not my ideal president. He's waffled on some major issues. Romneycare speaks for itself. I wish he had Newt's rhetorical weaponry. But I truly respect his executive leadership style. The point has been made that we don't need a legislator in the white house, we need a person who will LEAD. I'm tired of the republicans aiming their arrows at each other. Let's go after BHO. Time is getting short folks.
Mike C.| 3.26.12 @ 9:40AM
Romney will not go after Obama in any significant way. Everything will be cast in terms of "misguided" policy, because Obama's such a gosh darn nice guy that it just can't be malevolent. Romney will go into full McCain mode after the convention, and won't devote a fraction of the considerable money he used to trash the GOP field to attack Obama. Can't upset the precious moderates.
richard ryan| 3.26.12 @ 11:09AM
True Mike, it's not going to be nearly as satisfying watching the debates with Mitt vs. Obama. I think we would all love to see Obama cornered and forced to the ropes during this campaign. We all know the facts are on our side. But I think there are not very many folks out there that will be influenced by policy as much as personality and, unfortunately, the media coverage and negative ads. Romney is far more difficult to muddy in the eyes of "independent" voters compared with RS and NG. And his support for Paul Ryan's budget solutions was enough for me to get on board. What we should really be worrying about for 2012 is the SENATE. Mitch McSpineless is already talking about Obamacare being impossible to repeal. We really need a strong senate majority. That's what will save this country, not whether it's Mitt or Santorum in the white house.
Mike C.| 3.26.12 @ 12:10PM
The president matters when it comes to policy. Republicans have been whispering sweet nothings to the base for years about all the wonderful things they'd do if only they had full control of Congress and the presidency, yet how did that work out under Bush? Santorum himself said he felt obliged to be a "team player" and vote like a compassionate conservative. The president leads when his party holds all the reigns of power, not Boehner, Cantor, or McConnell (though I agree replacing this pathetic leadership is a top priority), and that is precisely what is so distasteful about Romney becoming the nominee.
The very thing his supporters claim as a major advantage, i.e., his willingness to work with liberals, is exactly why he will never push for full Obamacare repeal. Imagine all the helpful polling that will miraculously materialize around mid-February of 2013 showing how everyone now suddenly loves Obamacare. And by the time the media is done with them, the GOP would look like such cruel, rich white men to deprive women, children, and minorities affordable health insurance. And then the reaching across the aisle begins.
As to your point about the media, no war has ever been won by an army perpetually afraid of, or cooperating with, the enemy. You think the media treatment of our candidates is bad now? Wait until OWS really gets going around August or September with their brand new poster boy as the nominee.
richard ryan| 3.26.12 @ 2:20PM
I'm not asking Romney to "push for" anything, I just want him to sign it. A budget deal with bold cuts, and Obamacare repeal. I think he would do it. When we had both houses and Pres., things could have been done MUCH better, yes. But with the current situation those were the good ole days for sure!
john| 3.26.12 @ 9:38AM
Looks like the republicanes have shot themselves in the foot once again. Just like in previous elections the american rep of the soviet pollet bureau has selected a looser, rommie to push on the american people. The old guard idea of beliving they can select who will be the next president by pushing him on and backing him will work will fail. Sure they may get rommnie elected in the primaries, but that won't by any means get him the presidency. I for one will not vote for rommnie. I am a hard right conservative, voted republican since we got rid of jimmy cartor. But I swear, I will not vote for rommnie! I belive that there had better be changes made to the way primaries are held. For instance the statement, every vote counts....WRONG!!! I live in Indiana. What about my vote?? beings I haven't got to vote as of yet, but the election is over to hear everyone and his brother tell it. All I can tell the pollet bureau is they had best chang the elections in this country, so everyones vote does count, or they will eventually get a president for life like obomma, for life! Donald Trump, you are our only hope, you said you would run, if by June there wasn't a viable canidate to run against obomma. Well guess what Donald.
Mike Rogers | 3.26.12 @ 9:50AM
And the statistics show that Romney is a democrat.
Do not be fooled. Romney still cannot clinch the deal, and Santorum's margins of victory are typically larger, while the states which Romney wins are mostly narrow margins, often after a nail biter of an evening.
Instead if wishing for the margins which would come from removing Santorum and Gingrich, where of course Romney would be only real choice, consider instead, the margins from having romney out of the race, or even from having his huge negative ad spending out of the race.
Now consider what would happen to Santorum if he had the republican party behind him as the nominee vs if romney did - as someone who outperforms even when vastly outspent, imagine how good his odds could be against Obama.
Dai Alanye | 3.26.12 @ 12:05PM
Had Gingrich dropped out earlier, Santorum would have taken both Michigan and Ohio, and the Romney nomination would have been completely discounted by now. But it's still not too late for Newt to do the wise thing.
rightasrain| 3.26.12 @ 2:59PM
Not true-the exit polls have shown that Gingrich draws votes almost equally from Romney and Santorum.
Oldefarte| 3.26.12 @ 4:32PM
%%%% IF '''''IFS''''' AND ''''''BUTS''''''' WERE CHERRY AND NUTS, WE'D ALL HAVE A MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!! If Santorum would have dropped out, Romney would have sewed up the nomination or possibly conservatives would hve voted for Gingrich. WHAT IFS are about as worthless as a used roll of toilet paper!!!!!
gearjammer| 3.26.12 @ 10:00AM
Suburban voters and in particular suburban women. Don't you understand their votes are needed ?
Peppermint Tea| 3.26.12 @ 10:23AM
Once again Ross writes dispatches from Realville.
David Messick | 3.26.12 @ 11:08AM
Correction: He writes from Romneyville like every other sellout conservative who cares more about electability than principle and trustworthiness.
loulou| 3.26.12 @ 3:06PM
Good one, David Messick.
It's A Cunning Plan Actually!| 3.26.12 @ 4:06PM
BINGO! Nothing further needs to be said on this.
martin j smith| 3.26.12 @ 10:30AM
I think that Santorum is running against Mr Etch a Sketch and not to gain the nomination. His candidacy represents those who do not trust Romney and the Republican Establishment. And while Santorum is at it he is running against Obama.
So all the statistics are not the point in my view.
Those who follow the Republican nominating process know what is going on but there is an underlying issue that would be of value to examine further.
David Messick | 3.26.12 @ 11:03AM
Winning mostly blue states won't cut it for Romney come November either. Hope the people slamming Romney down a base that does NOT want him will see their stupidity and foolishness
when he fails in Nov. but then again the same people didn't learn a damn thing with McCain and previous RINOs.
rightasrain| 3.26.12 @ 11:09AM
ANY Republican will take the deep south. Romney puts other needed states in play where Santorum's appeal curdles.
Simon Templar| 3.26.12 @ 11:42AM
Which ones?
rightasrain| 3.26.12 @ 11:56AM
FL, VA, OH
Dai Alanye | 3.26.12 @ 12:09PM
Ridiculous. Santorum came within a whisker in Michigan and Ohio despite being vastly outspent and Gingrich taking tens of thousands of votes. These are, in fact, the very states where Romney will need a great deal of luck, especially after he turns left following the convention.
And Virginia is no certainty for him either.
rightasrain| 3.26.12 @ 1:33PM
I didn't mention Michigan and I never said anything was a certainty. Being from the Northeast, I know many people now residing in places like VA, NC and FL. All voted for Obama last time and most are disinclined to vote for him again. Many said they would happily vote for Romney but never for Santorum. Santorum's particular brand of religiosity scares them. Anecdotal to be sure, but I suspect there are many similar stories. Wooing these people is how you win FL, OH, maybe even NC and ultimately the White House.
Al Adab| 3.26.12 @ 3:21PM
My concern has been and remains the wisdom of allowing primary states such as IL or CA or NY be the ones which select the GOP nominee. To argue that such a con didate is "competitive" in those blue states is meaningless. Does it matter if the GOP candidate loses IL by 2% or 15%? Those states will not deliver electoral votes to the GOP.
On the other hand it seems that more weight should be given to safe GOP states in the process of candidate selection. Ultimately it is the states of FL, VA, NC and Ohio which will determine the outcome of this election.
Those electoral votes are the ones that count. It is critical for the GOP to nominate a candidate who can carry, not simply compete, in those states. Other states may be "in play" but the GOP needs to put its energy and money into the ones that count.
rightasrain| 3.26.12 @ 3:47PM
Reagan won NY and CA. They won't necessarily be eternally blue. Why should Republicans in those states be disenfranchised? Plus, I don't understand why "safe" GOP states should get more weight when any generic Republican will, for the most part, carry them in the general.
Al Adab| 3.26.12 @ 4:54PM
It is not the "safe states" which need to be heard, but the ones in play such as those I mentioned. There is a huge disconnect between the primary process and the general election. If the goal is to defeat this president then the preferences of NY or CA do not matter and only the states in play, those that went blue in '08 but may go red this time, are of significance.
rightasrain| 3.26.12 @ 5:04PM
Don't forget that Romney has already won VA, FL and OH.
Oldefarte| 3.26.12 @ 4:35PM
ALL OF THE SOUTHERN STATES, since they [recent] historically always vote Republican. Duh [southerners are NOT STUPID and would never vote for OBAMA]!!!!!!!
gearjammer| 3.26.12 @ 1:00PM
Little old New Hampshire is truly in play. 4 lousy electoral votes could be the difference ! Monseignor Santorum just won't cut there.
MikeN| 3.26.12 @ 11:32AM
Big flaws in this analysis. Romney's winning Massachusetts and Vermont doesn't make him more likely than Santorum to win those states against Obama. You have a point about Michigan and Ohio, though both of those are narrow wins, so it's not clear how a percentage point here and there makes a difference in points. Flip Ohio and Michigan to Santorum, and your point largely collapses. Indeed, part of Santorum's appeal is that people think he is more likely to beat Obama, specifically in those states and Iowa and Minnesota and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
Eric Rasmusen| 3.26.12 @ 11:57AM
Good comment. In Romney's case, we have to subtract out the votes he's getting because of advertising, name recognition, and, perhaps most important, support of the Republican party leaders. Santorum would have all those in the fall too. All he'd lack would be RINO positions, blandness, and a willingness to fight dirty (which I admit could be important against Obama).
Somebody shoudl check: is the reason Mitt does well in teh cities and suburbs perhaps because that's where advertising money makes the most impact? Maybe it's not his RINO views or comforting blandness after all.
rightasrain| 3.26.12 @ 12:02PM
You're right--advertising, name recognition and support are so detrimental to a political candidate.
rightasrain| 3.26.12 @ 12:05PM
Every exit poll, even in the contests Santorum has won, put Romney ahead of Santorum in the ability to beat Obama category.
Simon Templar| 3.26.12 @ 11:41AM
At it again, Ross? Like a dog back to the vomit.
That is a bible thing, Ross.
Please, go out to Newsmax, read a few articles by real journalist before writing such flummery.
You will find that Romney may indeed win the nomination by default of the numbers but not win the general as most of his wins have been in blue states that he will not carry in the general. The facts are that he is actually a weak candidate in the general and does not poll well with conservative dems, evangelicals, conservatives, and independents. Furthermore, he has yet convinced conservatives that he has any intention of remaining conservative nor has he dealt with the Romneycare issue which will be a giant albatross around his neck. This will play out in the general. This really is not about winning, is it, Ross?
You are not out here to place a balance, full picture view, are you?
rightasrain| 3.26.12 @ 12:00PM
As if Obama would ever beat Romney in any state Santorum has won.
Simon Templar| 3.26.12 @ 6:27PM
That is not the point. It is the independents, Reagan Dems, and the swing voters, we are after.
If that were the case then all the GD moderates we have run for the last 100 years would have been winning by landslides.
Dem and Dem Lite just does not get the electorate excited or lead to great voter turn out.
You do not see how excited dems are when they think of running against Romney?
rightasrain| 3.26.12 @ 6:51PM
That is my point. We need more than the deep south and Romney has already won FL, VA and OH. It's pretty delusional to think that independents, after voting for the most liberal member of the US Senate in 2008, are somehow going to support Santorum. And the Dems are actually salivating at the thought of going against Santorum who they could hammer as a neanderthal bigot.
loulou| 3.26.12 @ 7:51PM
But Romney claims to be a conservative.
Is he faking it just for the primaries??
rightasrain| 3.26.12 @ 8:14PM
Romney's fiscal conservatism will attract independents and save the country. Santorum's social conservatism repels independents.
Simon Templar| 3.26.12 @ 9:41PM
That is crap and you know it. It certainly repels you, no doubt.
Independents like the rest of the country are a mixed bag on social issues but this is not a driving issue with them nor do they all lean left as you would like to present it.
Simon Templar| 3.26.12 @ 9:38PM
Neanderthal bigot. There you have it. Is that gay rightasrain?
The independents did not vote for the most radical candidate but a false presentation of a moderate democrat running against the health care mandate proposals of an extreme Hillary Clinton. He completely misrepresented himself and you know damn well he did if you were alive and awake then. Independents are falling away from him in droves as they have found out now what he really is about. They are easily fooled and are often ill informed and usually rebound in the other direction when burned. It is the working class conservative dems that make the real difference and are often driven by working class fears and propaganda about Republican rich guys. Where have you been the last 50 years?
The dems are excited and expect to run against Romney. Class warfare and income inequality is their biggest card next to racism.
Romney won Florida and VA? Bid deal, half the sate is made up of retired democratic New Yorkers and Virginia...do I need to explain that to you. Ohio he squeaked by with 12,000 votes after spending a 7 to 1 negative media blitz.
loulou| 3.26.12 @ 7:50PM
Sounds like YOU are after the moderates.
Oldefarte| 3.26.12 @ 4:46PM
'.....Newsmax ........Republicans Should Avoid Social Issues ....Monday, March 19, 2012 12:36 PM
By: Wayne Allyn Root
Rick Santorum could be the worst thing to happen to the GOP — ever. Worse even than George W. Bush. And that’s saying a lot. Bush did so much damage to the GOP brand, he almost destroyed the party forever. It was George Bush who brought us Barack Obama. Few Americans voted for Obama, they just voted for ABB (Anyone But Bush).
Now the GOP has a golden opportunity. Obama has wrecked the U.S. economy from sea to shining sea. He has turned off voters by the millions. By historical standards, based on the current disastrous economic and unemployment numbers, Obama is virtually unelectable. Obama is a magician. He has made voters forget Bush in only three years. That's a pretty darn amazing trick.
The proof is in the recent polls. This has been perhaps the worst month for the GOP in modern political history. The message is no longer jobs, rising gas prices, chronic long-term unemployment, or crumbling real estate.
The message is about women’s health, the right to use contraception, Planned Parenthood funding, Rush Limbaugh’s use of a crude term to describe a young female law student, and whether Republicans like sex, or hate women. It just doesn’t get any worse than this. And in recent polls, Mitt Romney is leading President Obama.
The GOP has been handed a miracle. His name is Barack Obama. It’s almost impossible to lose to Obama. Think of his actions in the past month.
He’s bribed women with free contraception. He’s bribed Hispanics by hinting he’ll give amnesty to illegal aliens in his second term. He’s bribed homeowners with a $25 billion bank settlement aimed at those who don’t pay their mortgages. He’s bribed environmentalists by cancelling the Keystone Pipeline. He hands out gifts like he's Santa Claus.
And yet he’s still losing to Mitt Romney. After all that bribery. After all the stupid things said by Republican presidential candidates and conservative talk-show hosts. That’s called a gift from God.
Mitt Romney has it won. All he has to do is avoid talking about his wife’s two Cadillacs, his $250 million fortune, his money in the Cayman Islands, and his dog on the roof of the family car. It’s over. Shut up and you take back the White House. You’d think conservatives would be rejoicing. Licking their lips. They’ve found a new Gipper, as handsome as a movie star, with the perfect family, and a 20 percent Reagan-like across-the-board tax cut. It’s time to party like it’s 1980 again.
Enter Rick Santorum. It appears that conservatives and Christians have decided to self-destruct. They can’t take success. They must desperately want four more years of Obama and the Democrat Party. You know, that organization that stands for massive taxes, spending, entitlement and debt, income redistribution, sky-high taxes, sky-high electric bills, and a country based on social justice and affirmative action. Oh, and don’t forget amnesty for illegal immigrants and a union in every workplace. Lovely agenda.
Looking at that agenda and the 60,000+ new rules and regulations put forth by Obama in only three years; and the $5 trillion of new debt in only three years. you’d think winning might just be important to someone other than Charlie Sheen. But the conservative and Christian base just can’t get away from Rick Santorum. They want to party like it’s 1875. They want to turn the clock back to Victorian America, Prohibition, banning of sin, and chastity belts.
Here is what common sense should tell conservatives. The tea party chose to purposely stay away from social issues. They literally banned talk of anything besides economics. They chose to promote smaller government, lower taxes, less spending, fewer entitlements and lower debt — instead of the right to contraception. Amazing how that works!
It’s like magic. Embrace issues that a majority of Americans believe in, and presto — you win elections. Sure enough by avoiding divisive and unpopular social issues, the tea party led the GOP to the biggest landslide victory in modern political history in 2010.
Understanding that, why would you choose to change the topic to contraception? To calling women who have sex “sluts”? To banning pornography in a nation that obviously watches it in record numbers? That was Rick Santorum’s new gem only days ago.
As president he says he will ban porn on the Internet, in the privacy of your bedroom, on your computer, and even in the privacy of your hotel room. Now that should really turn on voters. That is certainly a job creator.
The country has no jobs and Santorum wants to change the topic to banning your personal behavior in your bedroom. “Ban the porn, because I stand for smaller government.” Now that’s a rallying cry for conservatives. Marching in lock step to mass suicide.
Think of it this way folks. America is like a bankrupt company, heavily in debt, bleeding jobs, desperately in need of a turnaround. What America needs is a businessman, not a community organizer. And not a Pope either.
What America needs is someone who understands how to turn around a failed company. How to create jobs. And yes, even how to fire people doing a bad job (think millions of government employees employed in useless jobs, think poorly performing teachers). We need someone who knows how to slash a budget in order to save the company (or in this case, the country).
My advice as an objective outsider to Republicans — go back to the medicine cabinet, take those 100 pills out of your hand, put them back in the bottle, and put the bottle back. Charlie Sheen was right. It’s time for the GOP to choose WINNING.....'
Simon Templar| 3.26.12 @ 6:20PM
Interesting article and yes, from the source I mentioned. For everyone of those opinion pieces there are 5 others that are political analytical pieces that actually contain more than conjecture but data, polls, previous past political statistics, and a more balance perspective.
I have never had much use for pieces that contain we do not need another Pope or Republicans need to run from social issues. That is a sure sign of a writer that has a severe bias and fear against religion and people of faith and is just babbling.
As I have said many times before, Santorum's issues and weaknesses have very little to do with his social issue positions which if you are honest are not that different from others in the party. They have to do with other aspects of his record and perhaps his temperaments and communications skills. All these candidates have some weaknesses and strengths. ALL OF THEM.
You and others want the rest of us to forget that particularly in the case of Mr. Inevitable which has some serious flaws, which he has NOT yet addressed. He could not even address the latest etch a sketch remark.
What seems to escape all of you and Ross, is the fact that this may actually run to our favor. Having a protracted run keeps Bam from targeting our nominee until the last two months while we keep hitting him in the stomach all the way through.
By the way, if talking of social issues were so problematic, Democrats would not be in power right now. They have spent the last 60 years talking about nothing but it, or did you NOT NOTICE? Pure flummery.
David| 3.26.12 @ 12:13PM
Get a life Ross!!! You sure do mispresent facts like saying that Rick has only won in states that will vote for the Republican in the general election.
Do you really consider Minnesota, Colorada, Missouri, North Dakota, and Iowa to be in the tank for the repubs election after election??? Mitt only won by 3% in his home state of Michigan, and won by less than 1% in Ohio.
Romney is winning in states that he won't win when up against Bam Bam. Do you think Illinois, Mass, Hawaii, and Vermont are going to vote for Mitt over Bam Bam?
The fact is Romney can't get the conservative vote in the primary (which means an unexcited base in the general election), and he can't attract blue collar workers and Reagan democrats. Trust my judgment here, a lot of union workers can't stand what Bam Bam is doing to this country and they will vote for Santorum, whereas they won't go out to vote for Mr. Rich Guy.
You can have your opinion as we all can, but please don't lie about the facts regarding who has won what and what they can win in November.
Simon Templar| 3.26.12 @ 6:32PM
David,
"Trust my judgment here, a lot of union workers can't stand what Bam Bam is doing to this country and they will vote for Santorum, whereas they won't go out to vote for Mr. Rich Guy."
You have summed up in one sentence the Democratic strategy for 2012.
By the way, this is the strategy employed in every single GD election in the last 80 years. Vote for us not the party of the Rich and Big Business! It works.
Bill| 3.26.12 @ 12:20PM
I thank Mr. Kaminsky for making a valid argument on the electability of Santorum. His recent surge in some safe Southern GOP states make some pundits believe that Santorum might stage a "come from behind" victory, but in reality, he is far behind Romney in the delegate counts, and his defeats in MI, OH, IL proved that Santorum has lot of works to do in winning the Rust-Belt voters. The problem with Santorum is that while he was in the congress he was no conservative, he voted for a bunh of bi-government billls once his arms were twisted by the GOP elites, and his defence was that "politics is a team-sport, so I voted with my leaders in the Senate." He supported Arlene Specter, who cast the 60th "deciding" vote passing Obamacare.
Santorum is evaporating.
ronlsb | 3.26.12 @ 12:52PM
Bill, your logic is missing. It's okay to say Santorum has no chance because when he was in the Congress he was no conservative, right? But nary a word about Mr. Etch a Sketch and his ever changing positions. Give me a break!
Bill| 3.26.12 @ 1:21PM
In order to get the 1144 thrashold, Santorum needs to win 76% of the delegates, and I do not see how he can win while showing his weakness in a region like the Rust-Belt, losing OH, MI, IL.................
ronlsb | 3.26.12 @ 12:50PM
Winning only in "smaller Republican states" is all Santorum can do? Where did you learn geography, Harvard? Let's see, Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorad, all Santorum wins, are "smaller Republican states"? Get a grip.
James Davenport| 3.26.12 @ 1:06PM
One could say winning primaries in states you can not win in the general, won't cut it either.
irish19| 3.26.12 @ 1:56PM
I will only say this. I don't like Romney. I don't trust Romney. I especially don't like hearing from a staffer that he will "recalibrate" his positions in the fall should he be the nominee.
I wish we could have gotten a real conservative as a candidate.
Having said that, I will hold my nose (again) if need be because getting zero out has got to be the primary focus in the fall. Taking the Senate and perhaps getting conservatives in as Speaker and President of the Senate would be next on the list.
loulou| 3.26.12 @ 3:10PM
With Romney at the top of the ticket, the GOP is guaranteed NOT to win the Senate. Republicans will be holding their noses and there will be no enthusiasm.
Al Adab| 3.26.12 @ 5:01PM
Yes, holding our noses once again. How many times must we follow the "moderate" GOP to defeat before we learn? This tradition goes back to Tom Dewey and includes such notables as Dole, Ford and McCain. Is there even any point in winning if the GOP president accepts the legitimacy of the administrative, social-welfare state?
This is a battle for the generations yet to come who, already saddled with insurmountable debt, will be the ones to reverse this genarations long trend toward centralization and the permanent ruling bureaucracy represented by the administrative agencies - our fourth branch of government - ruling by fiat. We can at least give them a start by rejecting once for all the idea of professional governance by an unelected, non-represenatative mandarin class.
Simon Templar| 3.26.12 @ 6:37PM
Forever.
Well at least until elections are banned and the brave new world blossoms forth.
Ross, religion will be outlawed, family will be a dirty word, and it will be sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll for everyone! All will be able to buy anything, everything, and employment for all according to his letter and grade.
john dubose| 3.26.12 @ 9:22PM
Quite by accident, this country has developed a "hold your nose" electoral system. The leftists have to put up with it too.
We need electoral reform with something like approval voting. We have to drain the swamp and that means working with some rather irritating liberals.
Clay Shentrup | 3.27.12 @ 4:28AM
John Duboce,
You said it, regarding Approval Voting. Voters shouldn't be punished for supporting the candidate they believe best suited to do the job. And a popular platform shouldn't lose just because too many candidates embrace it.
Clay Shentrup
The Center for Election Science
diogenes| 3.27.12 @ 10:31PM
Self-styled "real conservatives" are in favor of the use of government power to regulate morals. Rick Santorum, by that standard, is a "real conservative". Romney doesn't talk about regulating people's moral decisions, so he clearly is not a "real conservative". Romney may be a RINO, but at least he isnt a DEMO. Getting Obama out of the White House ought to be a good enough reason to vote for him, if only because Romney might not push so hard for ultra-Left programs as Obama does.
Even if Santorum could get the GOP nomination--which is pretty unlikely--he couldn't win the general election. He reminds me of the snotty self-righteous know-it -all who wants to be Hall Monitor so he can prevent running in the halls.
Every time Santorum or Gingrich trashes Romney, Romney looks better by the contrast. He ought to send each of them a case of good champagne. Anybody whom both of those guys dislike can't be all bad.
loulou| 3.26.12 @ 3:07PM
I'm noticing that the Romneybots are as tenacious as the Paulbots. Icky.
Clint| 3.26.12 @ 4:24PM
Dr.Ron Paul's Supporters Notice That You Israel Firster Smear Bund BibiBots Are Crybabies.
http://www.grimmemennesker.dk/.....people.jpg
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To An Open Convention.
JHK| 3.26.12 @ 3:07PM
Romney has won 21 contests so far, rather than 20 reported in the article
cicero| 3.26.12 @ 3:48PM
The contest in November will be between whomever the Repubicans nominate and Obama. Whoever that happens to be, we will vote for. The so called (mythical) middle will only have the same choice. Obama will be to the far left, with no where to hide. The Republican nominee will be the only other choice. I do not see the majority of the electorate, now that they have a record to vote against, choosing Obama again, no matter what the liberal press says and wishes. It would make sense for the 4 candidates to sit down and come to an agreement. At present, they are only wasting time, energy, and money. All are important. However, I realize that ego and ambition are powerful factors. They may even override the good of the people.
Al Adab| 3.26.12 @ 5:05PM
Cicero:
It comes down solely to electoral votes. It does not matter if the GOP loses a particular blue state like IL by 2% or by 15%. What matters is changing the outcome in the states of FL, VA, NC and Ohio with their 75 electoral votes. That decides the election. Does the GOP have a candidate who can deliver those?
Simon Templar| 3.26.12 @ 6:39PM
Exactly, Al. No one seems to want to answer that question honestly.
mjs_pa| 3.26.12 @ 4:31PM
So it's important that romney only wins in states that in the fall he'll get blown out by 20% points? And the fact that Rick can carry Republican state's is a negative?
In the fall, conservatives will stay home in droves if romney is the nominee and romney will lose in a landslide...costing us the House and the Senate.
Niniane| 3.26.12 @ 4:50PM
Newt Gingrich has to go, as his only reason for staying in the campaign is to make sure Romney doesn't get enough delegates and there will have to be a brokered convention -- as if Gingrich can win if he gives a rousing speech.
Per an article in The Hill, by Justin Sink on Mar. 19, Santorum has also said that he foresees a brokered convention: "...Santorum said he was optimistic he could prevent former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney from earning enough delegates to secure the nomination and then persuade a GOP convention to back his candidacy." Sounds like Santorum is embracing the Newt thing and is not above revenge. And his best thing would be to quit whining about how unfair that everything is against him -- elementary school kids do that, not presidents.
cicero| 3.26.12 @ 5:15PM
Last time the Republicans god into a grudge match against themselves, we ended up with William Jefferson Clinton. Wanta try that again?
The Regular Guy | 3.26.12 @ 5:16PM
I'm sure this has been said before in the comments, but you could make the opposite case that Romney has won most of his states in places where Republicans can't and won't win... Massachusetts, Vermont, Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan. To be sure, he won Florida and Ohio, two important swing states. But Santorum wasn't a contender in Florida, and he came close in Ohio. So the point that Santorum can't win swing states doesn't make much sense. (This is especially true if you consider that, if the conservative vote hadn't been scattered among multiple candidates, a conservative would have won Ohio and Florida over Romney.)
Al Adab| 3.26.12 @ 6:28PM
Correct you are. Romney keeps getting delegates with only a plurality of GOP votes. The votes against outnumber the votes for. There exists a great disconnect between primary elections and the general in November. Winning delegates in blue states, with a minority of votes no less, might as you note win the nomination, but it will not win the election.
rightasrain| 3.26.12 @ 7:01PM
This is so intellectually dishonest. You denigrate Romney's wins and suggest he's really a loser while trumpeting the guy who is an even bigger loser--Santorum has won fewer contests, fewer votes and fewer delegates. And if winning in blue states is so awful, how is winning in red states, which anyone with an (R) after his name will carry in November any better?
Al Adab| 3.26.12 @ 7:07PM
Do not assume that I back or even prefer one candidate over another. I do not favor Romney as I see him to be a distinction without a difference re: Obama. He lies in the same old accomodationist republican wing which continually, to our detriment, opposes the Conservative Movement.
That said, what I hope to find is the nominee who will reject the administrative, social-welfare state with which we contend and begin to move (the work of generations) back toward a pre-progressive limited representative government. Romney clearly does not favor that, but which of the potential nominees does?
Simon Templar| 3.26.12 @ 6:42PM
Exactly, but do not apply to much common sense and logic here else you will be accused of speaking gibberish.
David| 3.26.12 @ 7:05PM
Santorum CAN win in places like FL, VA, NC, MI, MN, OH, PA, IA, MO, KS, CO, AZ, the mountain states, the dakotas, the midwest, the entire south, and possibly even Wisconsin and New Jersey.
Assuming that a bunch of conservative jerks don't stay home because their man isn't the nominee, all repubs will vote for whomever our candidate is.
The question is: Of the three standing, who can attract blue collar workers (including union types) and Reagan/conservative democrats, which is who we will need in order to win in November?
What fair-minded person posting on this site can honestly say he/she believes that Romney or Gingrich can get a bigger slice of those votes than Santorum?
David| 3.26.12 @ 7:10PM
rightasrain, Santorum has not only won in republican states, unless of course you have the mistaken belief that Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri are consistent red states. And don't forget that Santorum came within 3% of winning Michigan, and came less than 1% of winning OH.
So, it seems to me that Romney is the one winning the blue states and not very many swing states. Except for Florida, any swing state he has won has been very close.
Santorum has won by quite wide margins in the swing states and slaughtered his opponents in the solid red states.
RCV| 3.26.12 @ 7:38PM
But Romney polls better than Santorum in virtually every swing state. Go to Realpolitics.com and see the polls.
RCV| 3.26.12 @ 7:38PM
...I mean polls better against Obama than Santorum.
Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 3.26.12 @ 8:39PM
I don't use reason and experience to acknowledge 32 years ago this time of year Carter was outpolling Reagan 58% to 40% at a time when rates were as as high as 21.5% interest and 14.8% inflation and 7.8% unemployment much less on a time right now when the incumbent is a stupidly acting dithering nattering idiot liar in chief of downgrade and really pathetic and despicable speeches with a silver bullet for economic stimulus and a silver bullet for shovel ready jobs and a silver bullet for digging us out of the ditch if for the sake of bipartisanship some just shut up and a silver bullet for the rich paying their fair share and a silver bullet for the deficit being halved first term alone and a silver bullet for Guantanamo closure no later than January 2010 and a silver bullet for affordable healthcare and a silver bullet for alternative green energy and a silver bullet for the preference for higher gas prices and a silver bullet for world peace and a silver bullet for global cooling and a silver bullet for receding ocean levels and a silver bullet for intercontinental rail within our continent and a silver bullet for all 57 states and a silver bullet for the Austrian language and a silver bullet for military corpsmen and a silver bullet for those in the military in attendence at ceremonies who have sacrificed their lives for our nation and a silver bullet for our nation's fundamentally flawed Constitution and a silver bullet for hope and change matters.
rightasrain| 3.26.12 @ 7:38PM
Of the arguably swing states, Santorum has won Iowa and Colorado. Romney's won FL, OH, VA and NH.
rightasrain| 3.26.12 @ 7:41PM
and I forgot Romney's win in Nevada.
PCP Smoker| 3.26.12 @ 9:59PM
KatSHITsky strikes again. Romney's advantage is a huge amount of cash, which he uses to bash others as non-conservatives. If he wins Illinois, it's not because he's appealing to moderates as much as competing in states where there is a weak GOP. The question you Romney lovers should be asking yourselves is how will he win the general election when 60% of the GOP dislikes him?
POST American| 3.27.12 @ 1:55AM
"America better watch it or in a couple
of decades we're going to be a minstrel show
------for RED China."
-Gore Vidal
1985
FROM Reagan on through Bush Sr and the
3 Caligulas --Clinton ---Bush Jr and Obama
----------------crooked smiles-------------------.
--Gore --Kerry -----McCain ---Gingrich
---ALLLLLL of them
----------------crooked smiles------------------.
The CFR-Globalist RED China sellout and
TREASON OP upheld, directed
and promoted by crooked --crooked smiles.
BILL Gates and David Rockefeller
and ------------crooked ---crooked smiles.
------------------BEHOLD!
AND --------------------------BE BOLD!
We are dealing with crooked smiles!
David| 3.27.12 @ 3:10PM
rightasrain, you forgot Santorum's wins in the swing states of MN, MO, and ND.
Plumber1911| 3.28.12 @ 6:08PM
Romneys loss in Michigan is assured the morons along I-75 and the UP will vote for the S**t Sandwhich