-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Three more states vote today, with Colorado and Minnesota holding caucuses and Missouri having its primary. Zero delegate are awarded as a result of any of these contests (at least directly), yet this could have an impact on the race going forward. Why? Because it represents Rick Santorum’s best chance to eclipse Newt Gingrich and emerge as Mitt Romney’s leading conservative challenger.
Santorum leads in Missouri, where Gingrich isn’t even on the ballot, and Minnesota. He is running second behind Romney in Colorado. Caveat: low-turnout caucuses are notoriously difficult to poll and the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling has done the only work in Minnesota that I’ve seen. Well organized campaigns are sometimes able to dramatically outperform their poll numbers and it’s hard for pollsters to know who will actually turn out.
That said, Santorum has been looking for his chance to become the anti-Romney and it is unlikely he will get a better one. Other things to watch: If Gingrich keeps losing can he keep going? Today is also another test of Ron Paul’s caucus strategy. Paul is polling competitively with Romney and Gingrich in Minnesota, where he will be able to turn out independents to vote for him.
Dorothy K Carter| 2.7.12 @ 11:01AM
No delegates assigned today to any candidate
http://mittromney.com/blogs/mi.....lity-check
W. James Antle III | 2.7.12 @ 11:06AM
I say that in the second sentence of my post. But if Santorum does well, it could persuade people to vote for him rather than Gingrich in future binding contests. Some conservatives are voting for Gingrich because they think Santorum can't win.
Casey Abell| 2.7.12 @ 11:07AM
Lazy, so I'll just crosspost my comment from NRO...
My cynical self almost wants the GOP to nominate Santorum. That's because I'm starting to think the economy will bail out Obama against any GOP nominee. So if Santorum gets the nom and loses, at least we won't hear we-lost-because-we-ran-a-RINO complaints for four years.
Though some people will say that Santorum was a RINO because he did too many earmarks or something. Just can't win sometimes.
Anyhoo, even Maggie and K-Lo can't really think that an anti-birth-control crusader would have any chance in the general. (Clinically delusional Quin Hillyer may actually think the guy can win.) Even if the economy improves Romney might have a prayer. But Santorum would get clobbered by the kind of attacks that buried Christine O'Donnell with only a small stain to mark the spot.
Still, at least the GOP would have gotten it out of its system.
Dai Alanye | 2.7.12 @ 1:14PM
Santorum is a strong campaigner while Romney is a surprisingly weak one. It's plain fact, observable by anyone, that without huge chunks of money Romney would never have gone anywhere in politics -- never would have been elected governor, never would have made a splash in 2008, wouldn't have carried Florida this time around. Without his fortune Romney would have to settle for running as mayor of some moderate-sized city.
All Mitt's success has been due to swamping the opposition with money, but against Obama's billion bucks his funds won't be enough. In the general election Romney will be very difficult to elect.
As a Republican, that is. As a Dem he'd stand a pretty good chance.
Casey Abell| 2.7.12 @ 1:51PM
"Santorum is a strong campaigner while Romney is a surprisingly weak one."
Fine. Then nominate Santorum. And watch your "strong campaigner" get clobbered in a defeat that will make his fifth-place finish in NH look good.
I'm still lazy, so I'll crosspost again from NRO...
Can we just step back for a minute and consider what would actually happen in the general election if the GOP nominated Santorum?
Basically, it would be the contraception debate after Iowa, multiplied a zillion times. I know Santorum's fans on NRO tried to ridicule that debate away, but Santorum's wild and wacky social-issues stuff would be anything but ridiculous to independent and even some Republican voters.
The GOP would get tagged as a bunch of loons who want to confiscate your birth control pills, put gays into some concentration camp closet, and generally return America to Queen Victoria's stodgier notions. This is not an exaggeration. It's exactly what the Dems and their buddies in the media would do.
And at that point you could (chastely) kiss any chances of beating Obama away. Instead of focusing on four years of low growth, high unemployment, and staggering deficits, we'd be hearing about Rick's ideas on sex. Just great.
The only question is whether Santorum might endanger the GOP House majority, which has kept Barry in check over the past couple years. I don't think so, but I don't want to take the chance. (You could, again chastely, kiss any chance of a GOP Senate away.)
Bill| 2.7.12 @ 11:19AM
Santorum's problems:
1. voted for NCLB
2. voted for Medicare Part D
3. voted against "Right-to-Work"
4. no tax plan, no regulatory plan, no real change
5. lost his senate bid by 18 points in 2006
Santorum's advantage:
1. if he gets the GOP nod, he may carry PA, too bad for Obama
Dai Alanye | 2.7.12 @ 1:03PM
I'm getting tired of posting this. Can't you people read and comprehend? Santorum's ratings during sixteen years in Congress:-
American Conservative Union -- 88%
National Right to Life Committee -- 100%
Americans for Tax Reform -- 95%
National Tax Limitation Committee -- 92%
U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- 88%
League of Private Property Voters -- 94%
Casey Abell| 2.7.12 @ 11:35AM
"Santorum's problems:
1. voted for NCLB
2. voted for Medicare Part D
3. voted against "Right-to-Work"
4. no tax plan, no regulatory plan, no real change
5. lost his senate bid by 18 points in 2006"
First three are minor. He'd hardly lose conservative voters because of them, compared to Obama. The fourth and fifth are more important. Santorum has no particular economic expertise to appeal to independents, and his off-putting personality makes a landslide loss more than a slight possibility.
The real problem with Santorum is the wild and wacky social-issues stuff. The GOP would get tagged as a bunch of nuts who want to take your birth control pills away, among other loony ideas. We'd have an election dominated by contraception and other nonsense, which would kill Republican chances to hit Obama on the economy...not to mention the GOP's overall chances of winning.
"Santorum's advantage:
1. if he gets the GOP nod, he may carry PA, too bad for Obama"
I ain't even sure about PA.
Bill| 2.7.12 @ 12:19PM
Hello my friend,
Most Southern states are "Right-to-Work" states, and Santorum lost in SC and FL because of his opposition to that law, and his excuse, "I'm from PA." He's pro-union, which is very troubling for concerned voters, who believe in liberty and free-enterprise.
He has no bold plan on fiscal issues or monetary policies.
He should have run for a re-match with Sen. Casey, who is vulnerable and on the verge of losing his re-election bid. By defeating Sen. Casey, Santorum could have erased the bad reputation he earned in the 2006 senate bid. Santorum would have a clear shot in 2016, as being a sitting senator from PA.
Santorum miscalculated and is paying the price.
Casey Abell| 2.7.12 @ 12:32PM
"He's pro-union, which is very troubling for concerned voters, who believe in liberty and free-enterprise."
Against Obama this would be a non-issue with conservative voters. Anybody looks conservative on economic issues against Barry.
Santorum's social-issue stuff is the real problem. It would kill the GOP with independents and even turn off a lot of Republican voters. Not to mention Santorum's oh so appealing personality.
Quin Hillyer can delude himself that Santorum is some kind of winner. I once deluded myself that I would be rich and famous. But reality in November would be, let's say, somewhat different.
Bill| 2.7.12 @ 12:49PM
I do not trust "Northeast moderate big-government Republican." Santorum is one of them.
Jake| 2.7.12 @ 1:34PM
If Santorum is the answer to the far right , how come they just discovered this ?
He's been running and mostly ignored since June .
Still don't understand why decent candidates
like Pawlenty, Bachmann , Perry and until now Santorum
were given short shrift by the right
and the Tea Party in
favor of Cain and Newt.
This restless flitting from one candidate to
another makes conservatives
look disorganized and flighty .