-
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
Last night emphasized the two major dynamics in the Republican presidential race. The most obvious, and most discussed, is Mitt Romney’s inability to land the knockout blow. Every time he has a chance to cement his status as the frontrunner and consign his opponents to irrelevance, he comes up short. Crucial Republican voting blocs still think Romney is too liberal.
But there is a second dynamic at work here: Romney’s opponents, especially Rick Santorum, are only able to do well enough to keep their campaigns alive and the primaries a competitive process. But they fail to do well enough to overtake Romney, and are increasingly hinting that their strategy is really to deny Romney enough delegates to win on the first ballot and force a contested convention.
Santorum didn’t need narrow victories in proportional states, with Romney taking some delegates too. At this point, he needs blowout wins in proportional states and some upsets in winner-take-all states to put a real dent in Romney’s delegate lead. Instead, when you factor in Hawaii and the American Samoa, Romney actually came away with more delegates than Santorum last night. Some of this is due to Newt Gingrich’s insistence on remaining in the race — neither contest in the Deep South would have been as close without Newt on the ballot — but this also been true in Rust Belt states where Gingrich was barely a factor.
The end result is the worst of all possible worlds. Romney continues to limp toward the nomination against opponents whose best hope is him coming up a little short on the first ballot, but with deepening perception problems that will dog him in the general election. Santorum and Gingrich continue to remind conservatives of why they don’t want Romney to be the nominee, while failing to do well enough to prevent that outcome.
View all comments (28) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/03/14/the-gop-primary-impasse
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
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Derek Leaberry| 3.14.12 @ 1:18PM
One has to wonder why places like American Samoa receive delegates. Granting unconditional and unilateral independence to America's misbegotten gains of 1898 should be on the front-burner of any Republican administration. Puerto Rico, American Samoa and Guam should be granted independence whether they want it or not. Same for the Virgin Islands and the Marianas.
As for the current race, it is likely to go a bit like this. Romney will win about 1000 delegates leading up to the Convention with Santorum several hundred behind. Romney will create a stir by announcing Mario Rubio as his VP choice a week before the Convention(Rob Portmann would have receive the VP spot if Romney had the nomination at hand going into the Convention). The Rubio nomination will be ballyhooed by the Republican elite as an olive branch to conservatives. Fox, Hannity and perhaps Limbaugh and Levin will jump on board. Santorum and Gingrich will be pressured to surrender after a first ballot after which Ron Paul throws his delegates to Romney. Romney is nominated by acclimation on ballot number two and Santorum and Gingrich are sent packing.
Romney wins the presidency if gasoline is over $ 4 a gallon. As holder of the presidency and Congress, the Republicans enact a Wall Street-flavored tax cut, make no budget cuts, bomb Iran's nuclear site if Israel hasn't already done so, and Romney's judicial nominations are limp compromises with Minority leader Harry Reid. Plenty of Potter Stewarts, Harry Blackmuns, Sandra Day O'Connors and David Souters. The Democrats win the presidency back in 2016 with Andrew Cuomo or Martin O'Malley. Justices Ginsberg and Kennedy retire, are replaced with Elena Kagan wannabees, and Kagan becomes the power center of the Court.
Casey Abell| 3.14.12 @ 2:05PM
Let's take this one item at a time...
"Romney wins the presidency if gasoline is over $ 4 a gallon."
Agree that Romney has a realistic chance to defeat Obama. He's only a couple points behind Barry on the RCP average right now, and has actually led in some recent polls.
"As holder of the presidency and Congress, the Republicans enact a Wall Street-flavored tax cut..."
Don't know what Wall Street's flavor is. Vanilla? Strawberry? Anyhoo, I agree that taxes would generally be reduced. I don't see Reagan-style 1981-82 tax hikes to close the deficit or rescue Social Security.
"...make no budget cuts..."
Disagree again. Eliminating Obamacare produces some automatic savings, and other cuts would fall on discretionary domestic spending, mixed in with some military cuts to keep the moderates happy.
"...bomb Iran's nuclear site if Israel hasn't already done so..."
No. Romney would certainly support Israel if it bombs Iran, but would not commit U.S. forces directly. No need to. Israel could do just as good a job as the U.S.
"...and Romney's judicial nominations are limp compromises with Minority leader Harry Reid."
No again. Romney would find John Roberts clones, reliable conservatives with resumes sufficiently impressive to get Senate confirmation. Makes the right happy without getting the moderates up in arms. And I'm not sure how many Supreme Court appointments Romney would get to make, anyway.
"The Democrats win the presidency back in 2016 with Andrew Cuomo or Martin O'Malley."
O'Malley? Uh, I don't think so. Depends on the economy, of course Mr. Carville. But Romney would probably have enough sense to keep things going well enough to win re-election. If he could beat Obama, he could handle Cuomo without much trouble.
GregA| 3.19.12 @ 1:57PM
***Santorum and Gingrich continue to remind conservatives of why they don't want Romney to be the nominee, while failing to do well enough to prevent that outcome.***
They continue to remind conservatives why they don't want Romney, but they also continue to fail in convincing conservatives that either one of them would be preferrable.
rightasrain| 3.14.12 @ 1:33PM
I love the description on NRO of these wounding primaries that nonetheless lead inexorably to Romney's nomination: "It's all over but the agony."
Vern Crisler| 3.14.12 @ 1:54PM
The agony for Republican will start when Mitt locks up the nomination. Then, it's run-to-the-left, and once again Republicans end up looking like the Stupid party.
Kitty | 3.14.12 @ 9:12PM
That's what I fear. After all, if Romney has to be dragged (kicking and screaming) to the right, what will keep him there, especially if his political comfort zone is RINOville?
Michael DePietro| 3.14.12 @ 1:39PM
Maybe some insight could be gleaned from someone like me a Santorum supporter who is fully aware of the delegate math. I am a pro-life Roman Catholic physician who thinks Santorum is more committed to the two issues I care about most. He is more likely to appoint conservative judges to the supreme court and he actually cares about repealing Obamacare, which is a germinating catastrophe. It will not only wreck the United States health care system, it will fundamentally move the government on a left ward, socialist trajectory. Of course Romney says he will repeal it, but who takes this seriously. As folks like Dan Henninger at the Wall Street Journal, and Jeff Anderson at the Weekly Standard have pointed out, Romney does not campaign on it. Santorum does. In fact given that Romney orchestrated Romney care I do not think he is philosophically opposed to statist health care control. I picture him modifying Obamacare as his advisor Norm Coleman suggested, calling it "repeal" and managing the lurch of the Government leftward as the good CEO he is. Much of the rest of the campaign rhetoric is nonsense. The differences in economic plans is trivial, both will try to cut spending, lower taxes, etc. Any differences will be ground to nothing once put through the congressional legislative process. Letting Obamacare largely intact will impair Romney's ability to truly do much about spending regardless of the rhetoric. Its not clear to me who will have the political skill to actually reign in the real problems with spending which are not "earmarks" a trivial part of the budget, but entitlements. CEO types like Romney are risk adverse, so I would take my chances with someone like Santorum, who is much more likely to spend political capitol if he believes in something. Finally I have no fear that Santorum is going to spend 4 years trying to institute some sort of theocracy. He did not do this as a Senator. He will be sincerely pro-life. The truth is there are some establishment types this makes uncomfortable. Romeny is acceptable to them because the suspect that his pro-life stand is a more a posture than a heartfelt belief. On this we probably agree! If one wants to attack Santorum on that, will so be it, but Santorum is not going after the pro-abortion vote.
Its true Romney more likely the nominee, and there is a risk letting this be fought out in August is a problem .Romney would be better than Obama. Still I look at it like this. A patient with a leukemia might be faced with this sort of question. "You can opt for a safer chemotherapy and get a reasonable chance of a temporary remission , and ultimately succumb to the disease or you can opt for the more dangerous intensive chemo regimen which affords a small but real chance at cure. Santorum is the riskier but real chance of a cure to statism, Philosophically he really gets it. Sure he had some compassionate conservative budget lapses, but philosophically he gets were folks like me are at. Romney is a safe choice of possible remission, but certainly not a cure of the relentless slide of the United States towards leviathan. Ultimately the slide will continue . I am opting for cure. Memo to Karl Rove et al.. All the talk of jobs jobs jobs ... and all the talk of Romney as a turn around guy will not fix this problem.
Anommynous| 3.14.12 @ 2:03PM
Very eloquently stated!
rightasrain| 3.14.12 @ 3:38PM
Santorum is socially conservative for the most part but he is decidedly not a fiscal conservative. He has repeatedly supported big government, statist programs, which I find abhorrent whether they come from the left or the right. Here is one representative example which Santorum himself trumpeted at the last debate: he voted to fund Planned Parenthood (not exactly a socially conservative stance but Santorum has a habit of doing the politically expedient thing). Then in order to dull the sting of betraying his principles, he introduced a bill to fund a federal abstinence program. Great--instead of one bad federal program--we get two. If this is what you mean when you say that Santorum gets it, I guess by "it" you don't mean conservatism.
Bill| 3.14.12 @ 1:42PM
The Southern Brawl:
1. Romney 2. Gingrich 3. Santorum
So far, 356 delegates from the South have been allocated to top 3 contenders. Romney leads with 160 delegates, followed by Gingrich with 116 delegates, and lastly Santorum trails both contenders with just 80 delegates. Even though Santorum won 4 southern states but he is far behind than Romney and Gingrich.
It ain't over yet in the South.
We have to see what happen in the upcoming contests in LA, AR, KY, and TX.
Gingrich still has chances.
john dubose| 3.14.12 @ 1:44PM
Santorum's hard social conservatism makes him the only Republican who could loose the general election ( including Ron Paul ). For goodness sakes, Republicans pick someone else.
Vern Crisler| 3.14.12 @ 1:56PM
I doubt that would sink his chances. His problem is that he lacks leadership experience. It would be one gaffe after another as he learns on the job. Obama got away with it because the media covers for him. That won't be true with Santorum.
GregA| 3.19.12 @ 2:03PM
I don't see the advantage of replacing an incompetent senator with no executive experience who had to learn on the job with an incompetent ex-senator with no executive experience who has to learn on the job.
Clint| 3.14.12 @ 2:59PM
RCP Average 3/4 - 3/13 --
Obama: 48.1 Percent
Romney: 44.3 Percent
Obama +3.8
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered
Convention.
Casey Abell| 3.14.12 @ 1:45PM
Speaking of NRO I'll crosspost something from the site about a possible Hail Mary play by Santorum (no religious implications intended)...
Lotsa navel-gazing around the conservative blogosphere today about a Santorum-Gingrich combo. Nobody seems to know exactly who would be the veep candidate, though. My guess is that Newt thinks Santorum would do just fine as the second banana. Which can probably be marked down as another Newt fantasy, somewhere out there with the moon base.
At Commentary Jonathan Tobin explores a more realistic possibility: Santorum flat out promises Newt the veep slot in return for Gingrich's immediate exit and endorsement. The more I think about it, the more sense this wacky-at-first-glance idea makes for Santorum. He needs Newt out now to have any real chance for the nom. And to get that Everest-sized ego out of the race, it would probably take a veep offer.
Sure, Newt might not accept. Even worse, Newt might go public with the offer and his splashy refusal, which would produce a monumental embarrassment for Rick. But desperate times...
Needless to say but I'll say it anyway, a Santorum-Gingrich ticket would crash and burn in November. The preacher-adulterer alliance wouldn't work so great. But Rick could worry about that later.
Anommynous| 3.14.12 @ 2:29PM
As a bonus we would get to see Newt in the veep debate against Biden. It might not be the seven Lincoln-Douglas debates against Obama, but it would be fun to see Newt smack Biden around for a night.
Casey Abell| 3.14.12 @ 2:48PM
"As a bonus we would get to see Newt in the veep debate against Biden."
Funny you should mention that. Tobin talks about those possible debates in his blog post.
GregA| 3.19.12 @ 2:06PM
A Newt-Santorum collaboration sounds like The Immoveable Ego meets The Irresistible Arrogance.
Clint| 3.14.12 @ 1:48PM
Watch & Learn.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....U2AvSwzuok
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Doug| 3.14.12 @ 5:55PM
So Romney contin ues to rack up the majority of his delegates in blue states, blue areas of purple states and states with large mormon populations. And we are supposed to believe he will win these same demographics against Obama? At least 60% of Republicans have clear heads.
John | 3.14.12 @ 6:20PM
I'm trying to understand the motivation of those voting for Santorum. The motivations seem to be 1) getting a brokered convention to deny Romney the nominatino, not specifically seeking a Santorum nomination, and 2) Seeking a Santorum nomination because of his social positions.
As for a brokered convention, both Rove and Morris have pointed out based on history the peril in waiting until the convention. They cite examples from both parties nominees not determined until the convention who lost the general election. Morris has said it is nearly impossible to build a successful campaign against an incumbent only weeks before an election.
If Santorum were the nominee, I think that would be devastating for the party, not because of his social positions, per se, but because he has been so strident about them. I think moderates would be alienated, and I know many people who share Santorum's positions, but are completely put off by his in-you-face style. Even if he tried to pivot to the economy, he has a history of highly controversial statements, and the election would be about Santorum's mouth instead of Obama's performance.
On a different topic, I created a fictional story, with some elements based on reality, on the creation of the Obama presidency. Based on several of Obama's actions, and tactics of his team, I thought a fictional story would be thought-provoking. Please check it out at http://american-path.org
michael depietro| 3.14.12 @ 8:30PM
john:
you are not listening. I tried to point out the rational for Santorum supporters. 1) He is not strident on social issues, he simply is more sincere. The only social issue he has been a leader on is that he has been vigorously pro-life. To the extent people vote based on the abortion issue the pro-life position tends to net you a majority. Last time Gallup looked at this about 20% of people said they voted based on this issue. ( Was 2004) and 51% voted prolife, so overall a pro-life position netted you 2%. This time around I doubt 20% will vote based on abortion so its likely to be a wash. The idea that moderates will be "turned off" is the kind of myth the pundit class repeats without any actual evidence. It occurs because they all live in Manhattan and Bethesda and can not comprehend anyone thinking abortion is.. well essentially a kind of infanticide .... and thus being disturbed by it. Beyond this however the real key is not the social issues, the real key is Obama care and its link to the broader theme of federal overreach. Obama care is a deeply pernicious piece of legislation, and Santorum talks about it and Romney minimizes it... "nothing to get upset over" as he put it. Santorum supporters are concerned about Obama care and realize Romney is indifferent to it, regardless of the verbiage. It makes sense to run the risk of losing to Obama in order to actually get a candidate who will reverse, rather than manage the slow slide off the cliff.
ayrnieu| 3.15.12 @ 12:51AM
It's just a nightmare. A 'dark horse' convention victor will walk out of the building to scattered applause, muted support, a miasma of dark conclusions about wasted time and advocacy - to be crushed into a bloody pulp, right outside the doors, by Obama's billion dollars. Obama's decades-established campaign staff will coordinate the drop, his legions of still-undead zombies will perform the drop, and the entire Democrat-Media Complex will shoot the drop and then report that the election's a foregone conclusion, so Obama may as well get back to work. And they'll be right. Every angle that Obama can attack the new guy on will be fresh and raw for voters, none of it 'old news'. Desperate defenders won't even know *how* to defend them - they'll see their credibility chewed up when they scoff at claims that turn out to be true, and if they don't scoff at lies then their 'not scoffing' appearance will still fester in voter's minds by the election, and even skillful defense will have to deal with every punch as it comes, surrendering the course of the discussion to the enemy.
Gingrich and Santorum are so confident that the Republican nominee will crush Obama that they're not worried about bleeding, exhausting, distracting the eventual nominee all the way up to the convention - not if they have a chance in hell at being that nominee.
That's *too* confident. He has a billion dollars! He has the least scrupulous political machine in America! He has the media!
Trash the lottery ticket and go help fight the dragon already, Jesus.
GregA| 3.19.12 @ 2:11PM
One thing the Fluke fiasco should have shown us is that by nominating a candidate personally opposed to contraception will make contraception and that candidate the focus of the fall campaign. The focus needs to be on Obama, his failed policies, and the disasterous federal debt he has built up. If Santorum is the nominee, does anyone actually believe that his "sincerity" on social issues will be accepted and portrayed by the media? No, they will portray him as "strident." The election needs to be a referendum on Obama, not another opportunity for the Democrats and the news media to lie about the Republican nominee.
Clint| 3.14.12 @ 7:21PM
While The Dow is up over 13,000, which was last reached in 2007 and The u-3 unemployment Rate is at 8.3, a figure that is the same, as Obama's first full month in office, The Republican Party is debating social conservative & foreign policy issues, to the detriment of the fiscal & monetary issues, which will be why Americans vote their wallets again, due to the, " It's The Economy, Stupid" factor.
The Stupid Party needs to wake up or we get McCain Redux.
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
As For A Brokered Or Open Convention.
Watch & Learn.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....U2AvSwzuok
Real Conservatives Don't Listen To Rove Or Morris.
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
spike59| 3.15.12 @ 6:27AM
'The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.'
...which will ignore the Tinfoli Hat Tinhorn (much like the GOP primary voters are doing)
John | 3.14.12 @ 9:29PM
michael,
Not questioning Santorum's sincerity or the benefits of his being in office, as you mentioned. Whether or not his positions are expressed stridently is a matter of opinion. I would say his comment about wanting to throw up listening to JFK's words comes across to me as strident. But aside from that, my real concern is in an general election, the media and Democrats would incessantly hammer him for the things he has said over the years. I think moderates would be turned off, and as I mentioned above, the media and Democrats would successfully make the election about Santorum's social positions, maybe made to sound more extreme, versus Obama's performance. I am really concerned that his candidacy would be a disaster of epic proportions for the Republicans, and with another term of Obama not having to worry about reelection, it would be a terrible disaster for the country.
There are many conservatives, such as myself, who share this concern.
spike59| 3.15.12 @ 6:25AM
...sigh...the GOP primaries were intentionally set up to all-but eliminate the possibility that a candidate would have the nomination wrapped up this early:
On August 6, 2010, the Republican National Committee (RNC) adopted new rules for the timing of elections, with 103 votes in favor out of 144. Under this plan, elections for delegates to the national convention were to be divided into three periods:
February 1 – March 5, 2012: Contests of traditional early states Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina,
March 6–31, 2012: Contests that proportionally allocate delegates,
April 1, 2012, and onward: All other contests including winner-take-all elections.
h/t Wikipedia