Feb 07 2012
Trifecta! Santorum Slams Brakes On Romney’s Coronation
final update: Santorum pulls the upset, wins all 3 contests handily. Romney takes a huge loss as voters deny his inevitability!
Well, well, well. A very surprising night for the GOP primary race.
It’s 9:55 PM and with 30% of the locations reporting from Missouri Rick Santorum looks like he is going to win big. Fox News has Rick at 54% to Romney’s 26% and has now called the beauty contest for Santourm. Santorum has nearly twice Romney’s votes, which is clear indication that the ‘anyone but Romney’ insurgent voters out their in Main Street.
In the Minnesota caucuses Santorum is leading with 44% to Paul’s 27%, with Romney a distant 3rd at 17%. That is with 11% reporting so it is still early. But if that ALSO holds that will be two big wins for Rick.
So where will Colorado go? We shall see, but if Romney fails 3 out of 3 he will be hurt badly. Santorum has been winning the debates of late, so maybe it is the last anti-Romney candidate standing!
I could get behind a Santorum candidacy.
Major Update (11:56 PM): Surprise ending.With 32% reporting in Colorado Santorum leads 43% to Romney’s 29%. We may not have enough votes in yet, but Santorum looks to be on path to a trifecta win. What a blow to Romney and the GOP establishment!
Major Update (10:33 PM): As predicted CNN just called Minnesota for Santorum. He has 46% to Paul’s 26% and Romney’s 16%. Congratulations to Senator Santorum. Now we see where Colorado goes.
Major Update (10:20 PM): 23% of Minnesota results are in and the previous numbers are holding. I expect the networks to call MN around 10:30 PM for Santorum. With 70% of the vote tallied in Missouri Santorum has twice the votes of Romney, who finds himself back at the 25%. Big day for Santorum, huge blow to Romney.
Major Update (10:10 PM): Minnesota’s count keeps coming in and Romney looks to be toast. 20% of the votes are in and Santorum as 44%, Paul has 27% and Romney is fighting for 3rd at 17%. If Romney loses all three contests tonight his campaign will have taken a serious blow. Maybe even a terminal one.
Jan, I think the fickleness of support, as you say, is a sign that *no* *one* in this campaign has any true broad based support. And that is a dangerous thing – we can’t forget that Obama does have broad based support, and it’s about 40% of the country. I don’t like ’em, but I don’t deny that they exist.
Romney’s a fool to keep running ads against Newt. Why bother with the guy who’s running #3 in a 4 man race? If he attacks anyone, it needs to be Obama, but he really needs to work an figuring out why conservatives don’t trust him. Attack ads won’t help that.
Newt may win Georgia, but so what? That’s the only state left he has a chance in, and after Santorum’s big surge he may not even win that. If he really cared about the conservative movement the way he says, he would drop out of the race and endorse Santorum.
Robamaney has three: NH NV and Florida
Newt matters if dropping out leave the South to Robamaney. If Newt does well in GA he may do well in TN. We don’t know whether Rick can beat Mitt one on one in the south. We know Newt can.
The big state of super tuesday to watch is that travesty VA. If Paul can win 40% that would be a huge black eye on Mitt.
RedTeam
Your counting is off. There have been 8 primaries. Santorum won the last 3, CO,MO,MI, and Iowa is technically his by the final ‘official’ vote count. However, there were 8 precincts that Romney didn’t contest, that weren’t counted and were weighted in his favor, so I kind of look at Iowa as draw (as I considered it when Romney originally was said to have won it by 8). Mitt has won NH, FL, and NV (3), and Newt SC (1).
WWS
Mitt ran that Ohio ad, IMO, because Newt was there Tuesday saying he was ahead there. Romney seems to be taking no chances with Gingrich, as he has risen from the dead so many times.
I do agree with you that no candidate has coalesced a voter majority around them. Although, Romney has been consistently 1st or 2nd in all the primaries, with the except of MO. None of the other candidates have shown as high of a floor level as Romney, thus far.
I like all of our candidates on a personal level. They all have baggage that troubles me. I’m beginning to think that Romney is the safest candidate though. His baggage is Romneycare,, the company Bain oversaw that committed Medicare fraud, fliop-flops, and not being able to message conservatism strongly. I think he can overcome them. Newt’s baggage is personal (cheating on wives), Fannie and Freddie, Pelosi’s couch/global warming, prior mandate support, and his out of the box big ideas. I think he could overcome them; but, his messaging is lacking at times. When he is good he is very, very good and when he is bad he is horrid. Santorum’s baggage is his anti gay marriage activism. Just google “Santorum” and “gay marriage” and read some of the things he has said in the past. If you look at them in context you might be able to accept them; but, the electorate is going to bombarded with string alongs of his statements and he will come across as a bigot who is against anything and everything “gay” (not simply pro traditional marriage)–and, as a radical who wants the government to be in your bedroom telling you what you can and can not do in private. He could fine tune that message and take a cue from how other socially conservatives word this, like DeMint. However, it is too late. His prior statements are numerous, and have been out there for more than a decade. I think this destroys him in the general election.
All three of the top candidates would do well on foreign policy. And, they will certainly have challenges in their term (probably even bigger challenges than Bush had).
None of them are as strong on fiscal conservatism as I would like (although I would probably give a slight nod in Gingrich’s favor on this aspect). However, I think they all understand the grave fiscal danger we are in and would all make improvements on some level. None of them will veto fiscally conservative legislation coming from Congress.
I still don’t know how I will vote. I’ll wait and see how things play out. But, I’d like to ask the Santorum supporters to go google “Santorum” and “gay marriage” and look at his prior statements/videos….and, tell me how he overcomes it……because I’d like to think he could. I’m socially conservative and don’t support gay marriage (civil unions are fine)–and, I would prefer this issue be at the state and local level as much as possible (not Fed level)….and, I don’t see how he overcomes it. I really don’t.
I expect a backlash from the extreme ideology of the Obama administration. And the cherry on top was: “We have to pass this bill so that YOU can find out what is in it.”
We need a solid conservative in order to save our country. I did not like Newt or Rommney but I am going to vote for whoever wins the chance to run against President Obama. I saw a part of Rick Santorum speaking last summer and had been impressed. However, it did not look all that good for him. I saw his speech last night and was impressed again. I still don’t know much about him. But if he keeps speaking like he did last night, I will want him more than any of the others.
MarkN & Jan, yep, I forgot about NV. So it’s 4,3,1
Frogg1. I have no problem with Ricks prior statements about Gays. as you said many were 10 years ago, back in the days when Romney was a flaming liberal that so many are so eager to forgive him for. Many people evaluate their positions over the years and modify them for good reasons, at times. Certainly my position on homosexuality has evolved over time. I think the reason Romney is ” not being able to message conservatism strongly.” is because it is not something he is familiar with or accustomed to. He mostly acts conservatively when it is politically expedient to do so. Now, I have no problem with politicians being political, that’s what they all do to some extent.
I also believe all marriages should be ‘states’ issues because there is no rights associated with marriage in the constitution. There is no right to marry or no right to not marry contained therein.
I have been warning how nano-technology in the hands of government “IS” the enemy of liberty. Well folks get ready!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/7/coming-to-a-sky-near-you/
A look at some of Santorum’s voting record:
It’s going to be difficult for Santorum to say anything negative about Romney’s MR comment. His union support and his lack of support for RTW laws are against the current republican grain today, as well. And, then you have to wonder about his repudiation of Romneycare when his own record shows he was for mandates before he is now against them.
Also, regarding Romney: It’s not a matter of forgiving Romney’s political stances in the past, as much as not seeing them as being ones of a flaming liberal. At best Romney has shown more of a neutrality in his assessment of right/left issues, which is reflected in his affiliation of being an independent before he became a republican.
I’ve said this more than once here, Romney is not ideologically-driven in his decision making. Rather, he pencils out the numbers and is a technocrat in evaluating moves which he sees as being fiscally sound, instead of simply pleasing the far sides of the political spectrum. His “core values” seem centered around what works best at a given moment. In a way, that’s why I see him as the right person for this time frame, as we need someone who will be able to appraise our economy based less on emotion and more geared towards a higher speed aimed at recovery.
well, that is the unfortunate thing about Santorum. If he runs the entire campaign is going to be about Gay Marriage all the time, and nothing but. At this time of economic crisis, that kind of election was the last thing we needed.
but who knows, maybe enough people are finally fed up enough with the left wing agenda that a hard right social warrior can win! I sure hope so.
“Voted against National Right to Work Act
Voted twice in support of Fedex Unionization
Voted for minimum wage increases 6 times
Voted to make Medicare part B premium subsidies an new entitlement.
Voted against paying off the debt ($5.6 trillion at the time) within 30 years.
Voted to give $18 billion to the IMF.
Voted to raid Social Security instead of using surpluses to pay down the debt.
Voted to allow states to impose health care mandates that are stricter than proposed new Federal mandates, but not weaker.
Voted twice for Federal mental health parity mandates in health insurance.
Voted against allowing consumers the option to purchase a plan outside the parity mandate.”
I saw this list last week. I already knew Santo was a BIG government Republican and I knew that I would have a problem with Santo on certain things. But at least he’s consistent and honest. And stay above the fray of the fights between Rom and Newt.
“but who knows, maybe enough people are finally fed up enough with the left wing agenda that a hard right social warrior can win! I sure hope so.”
Me, too! And I’m fed up with the RINO agenda, too.
I disagree with DeMint in regards to being fiscally conservative without being socially conservative. I think they do go hand in hand. Morals are important but by the same token, the gay marriage is a judgment issue between them and God as long as they don’t harm the society and live among us in peace.
I see that zerohedge reports Chinese inflation uncontrolled.
zerohedge is a damned interesting site. I read them hoping to hell that they are wrong, because if they are right we are so screwed….
Lurker,
I can be somewhat lenient on the social conservative’s agenda. But, gay marriage is more than a private act between a person (couple) and God. It is a civilization turning point, going against thousands of years of religious doctrines and the like. Also, in a reproductive sense, that is what marriage is all about — a religious, binding union that creates a human basis for reproducing the species. Without this inclusive arrangement, creating a man/woman/child nucleus, the family unit becomes blurred and drifts as to it’s meaning and purpose.
Also, civil unions are clearly universally accepted as a means for same sex couples to maintain a long-term relationship, having most of the same rights incorporated within it as a legal marriage, sans the validation of a religious ceremony. For most same sex couples this legal arrangement has proven to be satisfactory. But for some, gay marriage is taken up as an ongoing cause, through activist measures, forcing the recognition of their couple-hood onto the religious community. Therefore, I feel there needs to be a continuation observing the rituals of marriage, as subscribed by religious tenet, rather than capitulating to the pressures of political correctness.
Jan, I get you.
I’m not so much pro-Romney. I am certainly anti-Gingrich. Santorum is an honorable guy but he’s a career politician. But there is a more important item in play for me. My primary goal is to get rid of Obama. It is less important to me personally to have a candidate who reflects my views on everything as it is to get rid of Obama. Romney is resonating with the “Reagan Democrats” more than Santorum is.
In polling out today, among Republicans Santorum is up by one point on Romney. But against ALL likely voters in the state, Romney leaves Santorum far behind in polling against Obama.
By supporting Romney, I am not saying I align completely with his politics. For me it is a more strategic position. I see Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul has having no chance whatsoever of beating Obama. The candidate in my opinion that has the best chance of drawing enough crossover Democrats to win the general election is Romney. That is my goal … to beat Obama.
Next election cycle we have a major crop of Republicans coming on line. We will have Jindal, Christie, Brewer (who after a lot of initial criticism has turned Arizona around and they are now running a budget surplus), Rubio, Haley, and several others. It will be much easier to run a Republican who is more conservative against a fresh Democrat than to run against an incumbent.
But most importantly, while none of the current crop of candidates really excite me very much, Romney is the one who seems to be exciting the most number of voters overall outside of just Republicans and I believe has the best chance of beating Obama.
There is also a lot of anti-Mormon bigotry going on East of the Mississippi and rather than coming right out and saying that, people are deciding to demagogue other issues instead. Romney will win Michigan handily. That Santorum is up on Romney by only one point in his home state should be telling you something, too.
CP, thanks.
There’s also a lot of anti-Mormon bigotry in my area. I just don’t understand that because religion is not supposed to be a test. It used to be a long time ago but not now. Even JFK received the same anti-catholicism feelings.
I see that Romney met with a small group of conservatives tonight.
CPAC had several great speeches today. Rubio, Boehner, and Ryan.
Romney does need to improve his messaging and be careful what he says.
“Santorum is an honorable guy but he’s a career politician.”
The only reason Romney is not a ‘career politician’ is that he has spent his time ‘running’ for office instead of being elected and actually occupying an office. Had he been elected each time he’s run, he would be a ‘career’ politician. Funny how failure works to your advantage in some people’s eyes…….Now he can claim to not be a career politician…
“I see Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul has having no chance whatsoever of beating Obama. The candidate in my opinion that has the best chance of drawing enough crossover Democrats to win the general election is Romney”
well that’s certainly one opinion. mine is that any of those except Ron Paul would defeat obama. In fact, my belief is that Santorum would be stronger because he would get more tea party support than Romney will crossover Dimocrats. Question: is a dimocrat voting for Romney really a ‘crossover’ vote? just asking….
I would say I agree pretty much with this:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/02/is-2012-slipping-away-from-the-gop.php