Skip to comments.Santorum up in Colorado, Nevada with anti-Gingrich commercial
Posted on 01/31/2012 3:37:09 PM PST by VinL
Fresh on the heels of announcing January fundraising numbers in excess of $4 million, Rick Santorum's presidential campaign announced a new television ad that will begin airing Tuesday in Colorado and Nevada.
The ad attacks Newt Gingrich as being too liberal for the GOP nomination by arguing that he shares many policy positions with President Obama and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
"All three supported radical cap and trade legislation that would destroy American jobs and drive up energy costs. All three supported giving illegal aliens some form of amnesty. All three sported the government health mandates which take away our freedom and is the core of ObamaCare. And all three of these politician's supported the Wall Street bailouts that was a slap in the face to the Tea Party," the narrator says.
It goes on to refer to the trio as "cap and trade loving, bailout supporting, soft on immigration, big-government mandating politicians."
The commercial is a sharp indictment of Gingrich, with whom Santorum has split more conservative voters in early primary contests. But the ad does little to attack Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican front-runner who is expected to lead in Nevada polling.
"Rick Santorum for President: he doesn't just talk a good conservative game, he lives it," the narrator says.
Nevada will caucus Feb. 4, with Colorado voters gathering 3 days later at caucus sites across that state.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
There’s not much comfort to be had when the entire party establishment, most of the conservative media, and the biggest Wall Street money around is backing Romney. Probably the only way Romney can be beaten is if the conservative side presents a united front. Santorum doesn’t have an argument for staying IN the race. He’s had enough chances now in enough different kinds of states and he’s shown that if he isn’t able to handshake every voter in a state, he can’t place above 3rd. If he stays in, he hands the nomination to Mitt. If he gets out, Newt has a solid chance. Not a guarantee, but Newt probably has NO chance if Santorum stays in, considering how favorable all of the “winner-take-all” states are to Mitt.
I don’t think all of Newt’s ads have been good. As I understand it they’ve disavowed that one. Since it was a low-profile ad, he won’t suffer much for it. Romney’s lies were out in front and spoken by him.
Newt’s campaign definitely needs work. Last weekend I e-mailed their web sites and told them not to back off the Bain stuff, because my analysis of the exit polls in SC showed that the Bain ad campaign was a major factor in Newt’s decisive victory there. The FL ad campaign painting Mitt as a moderate seems to have backfired, since Mitt decisively won the moderate and liberal Republican vote, and there appears to be far more of them in FL than I would have guessed.
The first step to beating back Mitt’s lies is to respond to them, which they seem unwilling to do over the air waves in actual ads. I e-mailed their web sites today to say they need to come up with a “biography” of Newt, maybe like that 15-minute Bain mini-movie. He’s got a great history as a Republican leader and clearly people don’t know about it since Romney’s lies were swallowed by so many.
Jim DeMint endorsed Romney in 2008. Rush Limbaugh told people to vote for Romney in 2008 to stop McCain.
I think Newt is going to help Romney more than Santorum ever could, but I might be wrong. What I do see is that Santorum beat Romney in Iowa, and Gingrich beat Romney in South Carolina, but couldn’t keep the momentum in Florida.
If Gingrich had won Florida, there wouldn’t be a problem — Santorum would likely be dropping out.
But Gingrich couldn’t beat Romney in Florida. There are two polls in Missouri and Ohio showing that Santorum easily beats Romney one-on-one, while Gingrich is statistically tied with Romney in one-on-one matchups.
In Florida, according to the last polls, if Santorum had dropped out, half his support would have gone to Romney, meaning Romney would have gotten over 50%. You think Romney is getting good press with 46%, imagine if he had won with a majority. But even if every Santorum supporter voted Gingrich, Gingrich would still have lost. That doesn’t bode well for those who argue that Gingrich can beat Romney.
Maybe he can, but you aren’t helping by attacking Santorum, the only other conservative left in the race who could beat Romney if Gingrich has burnt out.
But you know that, and the only argument you have is to scream “Romney Romney Romney” and hope nobody notices.
As freerepublic’s most dedicated romneybot, you have managed to bring in DeMint, and now Cain in behalf of Romney.
Like I said, Santorum is the beard that gives romneybots an avenue to pursue their agenda.
Santorum the Holy man of politics endorsing a cult leader, a cult built on using deceit to convert Christians to non-Christianity, even baptizing them out of it in their estimation, the radical promoter of abortion and the homosexaul agenda, Mitt Romney.
if the logic is Santorum can carry PA....they might ought to look at his last try
he got his ass handed to him
That is a hypothesis, but it has no facts to support it. Multiple polls show that Santorum in Florida took more votes from Romney than Gingrich, so he actually helped -- not that it mattered, even if every Santorum voter voted Gingrich Gingrich would still have lost.
I've explained elsewhere how it could well be that Newt can't get above a certain support level, so he'll never win, but his presence makes it impossible for people to consider Santorum as the alternative.
Then two polls came out, in Missouri and Ohio, that illustrated the point. In Missouri, the poll was (from memory) Gingrich 26, Santorum 24, Romney 20. But Gingrich-Romney was only +1 (Romney got 5% closer with Santorum out), while Santorum-Romney was +13 for Santorum. So while Gingrich is nominally in the lead, it's only because Santorum is there. Remove Santorum, it's a toss-up. Remove Gingrich, and Santorum runs away with it. In Ohio, similar results. Gingrich-26, Romney-25, Santorum-22(?). In Ohio, if Santorum quits, Gingrich is ahead by +3, so he benefits marginally by Santorum dropping out, but is still within the margin of error. But if Gingrich, in the lead, drops out, Santorum beats Romney by +8, and easy win. So there is two cases, yes just polls, but which illustrate how if the 1st-place guy quits, the 3rd-place guy beats the 2nd-place guy by much more than the 1st-place guy does if the 3rd-place guy drops out. I'm not telling Gingrich people not to support Gingrich, or telling Gingrich to drop out. I'm saying there is no evidence that Santorum dropping out will help Gingrich, and a lot of polling data to suggest both that it would HURT Gingrich, and that Gingrich can't beat Romney. Then there are the national polls which show that while Santorum is within single digits of Obama, Gingrich loses to Obama by 14 points. Again, it's a poll, not fact, but polls are all we have to argue that Gingrich is the "best candidate". I just don't see Gingrich proving himself the best candidate. In the past month, he's made at least 3 left-wing attacks, yes against Romney, which we like, but from the left, not the right. He has been criticized TWICE by the Club for Growth. He had to pull an ad after being criticized by Marco Rubio. He's been attacked harshly and unfairly, but whether fair or not, it has hurt him, his negatives are high, his support is weakened. Can he recover? I hope so, or I hope he falls flat and Santorum can pick up the pieces.
I’m back on the ledge here. **** it, throw it to Paul if Newt can’t end Mittens.
Paul would be good for one term at most, enough time for Fed overhaul but not enough to seriously damage foreign policy.
I was referring to paid ads, not debate dribble, which almost no one will remember.
Thanks. That answers my question, although that ad came out in mid-January.
Seems to me that he'd be running that ad, instead of the new one attacking Newt, if he really means to fight for our cause.
It's a good ad - right up until the end, when they show Rick at a campaign rally. The man looks stressed out and unhappy. Not like a winner at all. Very uninspiring. A little unsettling, even.
I think that Gingrich and Romney know the true effect of Santorum on the race.
Romney wants him in, and Gingrich want him out.
“bring in”? Yes, like nobody knew about Cain and DeMint until I mentioned it. Easier for you to make that stupid argument than explain why Santorum’s endorsement in 2008 was disqualifying, while Cain was the darling of conservatives while having the exact same endorsement history.
But feel free. I don’t think freepers need me to point out the absurdity of your argument.
Do you really find that Santorum is supported by former Romney supporters, more than Mitt? I know you and others cared a whole lot more about keeping an enemy’s list than I ever did trying to keep track of which freeper ever supported a candidate.
I remember a similar argument made about Perry supporters. I was much closer to being a Perry supporter than I am now to being a Santorum supporter, although I haven’t really thrown my “support” to anybody yet. I might well end up a Newt guy, if I can be convinced he can beat Romney. Until then, I’m going to point out the flaws in arguments against Santorum.
You can “say” anything you want, but without some facts, your imaginings aren’t all that useful in making informed decisions. Several polls show that Santorum is helping Gingrich, by taking votes from Romney. If Santorum took your advice and dropped out in Florida, Romney would have won a majority. Gingrich couldn’t win florida even with ALL of Santorum’s votes. So your opinion that Santorum’s very existance helps Romney isn’t worth much.
For a political person posting in a political forum, your grasp of political reality also seems very tenous at best.
I’d prefer if a candidate did nothing but talk about what they will do, and contrast it with what their opponents say they will do. But virtually everybody else here seems very focused on past positions of other candidates, and it’s hard to see how you don’t run advertisements about what your opponents did in the past and still meet that desire.
If you believe that Romney has a ceiling when opposed by a candidate without significant negative baggage, politically the winning strategy may be to convince the electorate to support you instead of another candidate who has their own ceiling. I don’t know if that is really a winning strategy, but it might be.
But I don’t want you to think I endorse this ad, which I haven’t been able to watch (I can’t listen to it now). I don’t know if this ad will help Santorum where it is running. But for those who believe Santorum has a higher ceiling of support than Newt (I don’t know that, but I can’t refute it), getting people to let go of Newt and embrace Santorum may be the ONLY way to beat Romney.
One thing I’m sure of. If when this is all done, Romney has won, and Gingrich has lost, many of the people in this thread will blame former Romneybots, Santorum, the media, the GOP-E, and anybody else they can think of. They will not ever think back and wonder if those who supported Santorum were right, and Gingrich was never going to win — they’ll assert that Gingrich “could” have won if not for what everybody else did.
Anyway, I’m done in this thread. I think I’ve explained the pro-Santorum argument sufficiently, and I doubt I’m going to convince any Gingrich supporters to stop attacking Santorum and slandering him as some are here. It’s just the way some people here think arguments are won. Hard to believe it works for them in real life.
Romney wants Santorum in the race.
Gingrich wants him out, let’s use Gingrich’s expertise and insider view of the campaign and support him on this.
As a romneybot, you using Santorum for your ends is just par for the course. Years of your never ending Romney efforts are more than tiring.
Santorum endorsing Mitt Romney is astounding, Rick’s whole hook is supposed to be as the most holy candidate, then we find him endorsing a man of evil, a stealer of Christian souls, a cult leader, a passionate pro-abortion radical, a true radical for the homosexual agenda.
No offense, but what you’re doing is a meaningless, static analysis. Santorum is able to draw votes away when Newt’s taken out of the poll because he has almost never been the target of negative ads in this campaign. When you compare Santorum and Newt on a level playing field, Newt runs away with it. Just compare where Newt was in early December before the Iowa attack ads started. He was ready to run away with the election. We don’t know how Santorum would fare under a negative ad assault, but there is EVERY reason to believe he would lose a lot of support under that assault. So the fact that a clean Santorum only performs a little better in the polls you selected against a bloodied and battered Newt shows that Newt has a lot more intrinsic strength.
As I said, you can’t instantly remove Santorum and expect Newt to start running away with the election. Newt needs to have a good campaign and good ads, and he doesn’t seem to have accomplished that yet. A two-man race between Mitt and anybody else would leave the opponent the target of negative ads and at a big disadvantage. Newt has shown at least off-and-on resilience in weathering that storm. We don’t know how Santorum would fare, but he did lose big in his last big election, and there is every reason to believe he would drop in the polls the same way Newt did under the barrage in Iowa and Florida.
So, bottom line, your analysis fails to factor in that in a two-man race between Santorum and Mitt, Santorum would be exposed to a big negative ad campaign that he has not yet been subject to in this race. That would surely worsen his standing in the polls and my estimation is he would be less able to withstand that barrage than Newt. Newt had truly GREAT moments in South Carolina that few other candidates have come close to in recent memory, so he has some powerful strengths that have given him resilience under some of Mitt’s attacks.
Santorum ripped Romney(care) in the DEBATE, and it was HUGE!
Debates matter - that’s how Newt won SC.
Also, if voters are stupid enough to make Romney the nominee, which I doubt, Romney would pick RUBIO, imo, and here’s why:
Gingrich wants him out — that’s your argument? Gingrich is an opponent. Of course he wants him out. It could well be that Santorum being out would help Gingrich win in the end — I certainly can’t say it wouldn’t. But Gingrich wants to win, and certainly Gingrich believes he’ll have a better chance of winning if Santorum is gone. Santorum thinks the country is better off with him in the race, and while you are easily dismissive of him, I’m guessing his supporters take Santorum more seriously than Gingrich’s “insider” view.
That doesn’t mean Romney has a better chance of LOSING if Santorum is gone. Because there is still a chance Santorum could win, and that won’t happen if Santorum quits.
Since you seem to know who everybody endorsed in 2008, who did Gingrich endorse? It’s a serious question, I can’t find it on the web, but I’m guessing he endorsed somebody, and apparently we are supposed to care.
“Hes not who I thought he was, and hes not worthy.”
Rubio has blown it with conservatives.
I really want to know more about this. How could Santorum do this.
Santorum is too obscure to have ever been well known to me, my image of him was as the super Christian candidate.
Now I learn this, now he is accused of being a Romney stalking horse, he even has our top romneybot ranting and raving in his defense, plastering the threads with long posts to help Romney and his stalking horse.
Santorum endorsing Mitt Romney is astounding, Ricks whole hook is supposed to be as the most holy candidate, then we find him endorsing a man of evil, a stealer of Christian souls, a cult leader, a passionate pro-abortion radical, a true radical for the homosexual agenda.
I’m disappointed with Rubio, but he still has done way more good than bad, and I think he is just being loyal because Romney helped him. Kind of like Palin did for McCain out of loyalty.
I think we’re finding out, more and more, none of them are perfect. :)
Santorum endorsed Romney because he thought he was better than McCain, only 6 days before Romney dropped out - talk about endorsing someone at the last minute. Not exactly an enthusiastic endorsement.
DeMint also endorsed Romney, but I don’t know at what point in time. I have an idea, as we learn about Romney, DeMint, et al would/does not think as much of Romney now.
Well I’m glad you pointed that out but I said nothing about supporting Newt so don’t blow a gasket. I don’t care what Newt did I am pointedly talking about Santorum. All this talk of him being the “only” Conservative in the race needed to deflated as it’s pointedly not true. So there was no need for a knee jerk reaction from a Santorum bot.
Read my tagline to see who I am voting for these days.
We are not finding out who isn’t perfect, we are finding out who is the enemy.
This is an election between the left and the right, Rubio picked his team, and it was the opposing team, the anti-Reagan, Romney/Rockefeller wing of the GOP.
Don’t compare that betrayal of Rubio’s to the 2008 Presidential ticket not turning on itself for the following mid-term election.
The only reason I might be voting “none of the above” is because I can only vote for Paul or Romney. I’m not voting for Romney, but I’ll have trouble voting for Paul. I might go to vote, sign the book, and then leave — hoping they notice.
I don’t care about Demint, I care about defeating mitt Romney.
Santorum endorsed a man of evil, a stealer of Christian souls, a cult leader, a passionate pro-abortion radical, a true radical for the homosexual agenda.
Yet Santorum plays super Christian, holier than thou, his supporters cite Newt being a divorced man as the reason that they prefer Santorum the Romney endorser, and then Bishop Romney himself, over the historical Reagan conservative figure.
Rick doesnt attack on personal issues, like Romney does, but be prepared - he WILL attack on ISSUES.
Fair enough so where are his attack ads against Romney’s liberal positions on the issues especially his flip flipping on abortion and funding of Planned Parenthood under Romneycare.
As opposed to Gingrich’s almost perfect voting record on libe issues and his lifetime rating by the ACU.
Santorum is a skunk.
Charles, you haven't explained the pro-Santorum argument at all. You spun out a string of head-scratching justifications for doing so, but that's about it.
You went from preferring to ignore the candidates' records, and simply have them fight it out based upon who can deliver the best campaign promises, to telling me that it would be more logical for the supporters of the candidate in second place to turn their votes over to the guy in third place.
Excuse me, but that whole post sounds like something you wrote after your third glass of wine.
Oh really? And what effect did said ripping have on the Florida vote?
I am an “anybody but Newt” guy, but if Newt wins the nomination, I will support him 100%. 2012 has to be about beating Obama. I think that Gingrich’s negatives are just too high to beat Obama. As for Santorum being part of the Romney gameplan, I doubt it. I actually think Santorum has a chance of winning. At some point, social conservatives have to realize that Gingrich can’t do it and the only alternative is Santorum. Don’t Republicans still believe that character matters.
I agree that some of RS’s positions are somewhat unpalatable with the general population but unfortunately it will be very hard for Gingrich to undo the negatives that have built up over many years. Again, let me re-emphasize that if he’s the pick, I’ll support him. I’m more anti-Obama than pro-GOP. But I would just hope that everyone would support Romney if he’s the pick. I’ve heard time and again that he’s no better than Obama. Baloney! “The enemy of better is best”.
In Missouri, the 3-way matchup has Gingrich ahead of Romney by 6%, good but within the margin of error. Santorum is behind Gingrich by 4%. (Gingrich 30%, Santorum 26%, Romney 24%). Conventional wisdom says if Santorum drops out, Gingrich runs away with the election.
But they polled head-to-head matchups:
Head-to head, Gingrich would defeat Romney in the state, 43-42, but Santorum would, 50-37.
Got that -- Gingrich ahead of Santorum by 4, and ROmney by 6. But without Santorum, Gingrich is essentially tied with Romney, losing 5% of his lead. If Gingrich drops out, Santorum runs away with the election, winning by 13%, and getting a clear majority.
So, if the poll accurately reflects what would happen in the election, GIngrich, the front-runner, should drop out so that Santorum can get an easy win over Romney, and win a majority of the votes.
That is what I call a "logical argument" for why it might be better for those of us who want to be Romney if the guy polling better drops out -- because the guy polling better has high negatives and a ceiling below 50%, while the guy polling 2nd is widely liked and has a much higher ceiling of support.
The situation in Ohio polling is similar, although Gingrich slightly improves there if Santorum is gone:
The primary is a three-way race between Gingrich (26%), Romney (25%), and Santorum (22%), with Paul at 11%. Gingrich would top Romney, 42-39, but Santorum would, 45-38.3-way, Santorum is LAST, Gingrich is +1 on Romney. Without Santorum, GIngrich is +3, which is still a razor thin margin. But even though Santorum is 3rd in the 3-way, if the "front-runner" Gingrich drops out, Santorum wins easily by 7%, a better margin than Gingrich gets in either 3-way or head-to-head.
Now, these are just polls. But they are two polls that show, logically, HOW it could be that the "front-runner" dropping out is better than the guy running behind him dropping out.
If you want to scratch your head, go ahead. It seems "counter-intuitive", until you remember that there isn't a block of "conservative" voters who can interchangeably be assigned to whatever conservatives are running. Gingrich has long-standing negatives and has a ceiling. I know you understand that, because you know that Romney has a ceiling right now as well, and the principle is identical.
It isn't just important that you have enthusiastic supporters. You need to avoid committed opponents. If 60% of the electorate dislikes Gingrich and won't vote for Gingrich, the only way Gingrich can win is a 3-way race, so that Santorum can take the votes of the voters that won't vote for Gingrich, but would rather not vote for Romney. And it turns out, that if Gingrich voters are much more in the "anybody but Romney" category than Santorum voters are, Gingrich dropping out throws enough votes to Santorum to make it easier to beat Romney.
This is a logical argument, which doesn't mean it reflects how things would actually work. It is how things COULD work. It is also possible that Santorum would get plastered with negative ads and end up with high negatives as well. I'm not telling Gingrich to drop out, I'm saying that there is a logical reason NOT to ask Santorum to quit.
Chi paga? A cui bono?
Who picked up the tab? Whom does it benefit?
>Rush told us today that the second choice for most Santorum voter, is Mitt Romney<
And people believed him? What the ! is Limbaugh saying such a thi8ng on the airways? ARush is part of the establishment? I guess he is!
Not only does Romneys coronation get rid of the Tea Party and conservatives for Rove and his RINO Country Club Status Quo bunch, it helps the dems keep the continuity of their schtick.
Obama and Romney are IDENTICAL politically, ESPECIALLY when it comes to the VERY important decision on permanently totally repealing Obamacare.
Obama can counter every political Romney arguement with I know YOU are, but what am I and clobber him over the head HARD with the 99% crap that hes a 1%er.
Geeee....that only leaves ONE itty - bitty difference.
Wanna guess what THAT is??????
Try skin pigmentation.
It worked for Obama BIG TIME in 2008. Romney is the ONLY candidate they can REALLY use it on because they are identical in almost every other way.
Romney WON'T attack Obama like he has Newt, because they will pin the "racist" tag on him so fast that his head will spin faster that his political flip-flops.
So Myth will "play nice" with Obama, he'll try to get everyone to sing "America The Beautiful" ( the fake crap he semms to be doing at ALL his Florida stops) and get KILLED in Nov, as is the GOP-e"plan" (see pic above), except Romney AND Rick don't seem to see it......YET.
Lil' Ricky WILL be "handed" the VP slot to "shut up" the "Santorum" and Tea Party "Conservative" people and with Romney's defeat, ensure Lil' Ricky won't be a problem to Rove and the GOP-E EVER AGAIN. With the Tea Party out of the way of BOTH parties for 2012 and 2016, Romney out of the way for 2012 AND 2016, the dems TOTALLY despised after 8 years of Obama, Rove and the boys can run Jeb for 2016 with NOBODY in their way.
OBTW, The pic below was taken last Friday afternoon Jan27th, 2012 , the day after "Bloody-Up Newt" Thursday by every RINO Country Clubber in this particular corner of the universe.
How many photos of those three together have YOU seen??
Pretty much ALL the polls earier in the week had Newt leading in Florida, until the "suddenly" orchestrated RINO Newt attack which culminated Thursday before the debate, and THEN on Friday, I see THIS photo??
What in the heck could the three of them "constructively" have important enough in common to "get together" and talk about??
Maybe Barry just wanted ask them over to find out how "W" was doin', you know, the son and brother of the two guys in the pic who he STILL TO THIS MINUTE blames EVERYTHING bad that has happened to date in his administration on and two years before he replaced him in office???
Yeah, that's the ticket.
I have an idea, and I mentioned it in the post above the pic..
Newt and Sarah have been TRYING to warn the Tea Party and Conservatives about this BIG TIME!!
(Sorry, but my Reynolds Wrap cap dang near fell off when I saw it.)
THIS is why people are upset with Lil' Ricky. Either he is TOTALLY IGNORANT, or he's "in on the deal.
There is NO inbetween.
The question is, of course, did the government give you the permission to write this? After all, personal autonomy is something conservatives frown upon... at least, if Santorum had his way.
What makes conservatives better than liberals is that we look at an issue... and try to figure out what the solution is, ourselves. We don’t look to a lord and master for permission, or even for the answer.
At least, that’s what I always thought.
Santorum... and those that just take someone’s word as the holy gospel without trying to reason out why some idea is a good one... are seriously making me question just how ‘conservative’ many conservatives really are.
And you’ve managed to add onto that.
You argue the case for Gingrich dropping out quite well, but as you stated a couple of times, it’s so counter-intuitive that many people will either balk at the logic, or question the underlying assumptions.
I’m in the second category.
Santorum’s actual performance in the race, to date, causes me to doubt the assumptions your case is based upon. Where the rubber has met the road, more voters have put their faith and trust in Gingrich than in Santorum, which is, in my opinion, the best measure of future performance we have.
Just based upon that, I would still argue that it’s Santorum who should drop out, and not Gingrich - not to mention the fact that all things considered, Gingrich is better equipped to handle the enormous task facing the next president.
Now, that is my opinion, and of course, yours may vary. Thanks for the civil exchange.
I want to be clear — I’m not personally arguing for Gingrich dropping out; I’m presenting what I believe is a logical argument for it, precisely so I can instead argue that we have insufficient information to call for Santorum to drop out.
And I only do THAT so I can then say that it is unreasonable to attack Santorum for not dropping out, or call his decision a clear case of him helping Romney. Because if I can show that Gingrich dropping out is better to stop ROmney than Santorum dropping out, and I can then show that we don’t know if Santorum dropping out is good or bad, how can we attack him for not acting rashly before we know what the outcome would be?
That is the extent of my argument and involvement. I urge no-one to change their own strategy; whether it is to vote for Gingrich or vote for Santorum. I’d just like civility amongst Freepers on the subject of which strategy is better, because there is an argument to be made either way.
I can’t imagine convincing a person in 1st place to drop out in order to make space for a lower-place person to take the lead. Now, having said that, I would note that Newt Gingrich SAID that was exactly what he was going to do after Iowa. He lost Iowa, but was leading in national polls, and said he was going to sacrifice himself to stop Romney.
I wanted to address this separately. I think that is one way of looking at the results. But if you again think about the dynamics of a 3 or 4-person race, it is easy to see how that analysis COULD be faulty.
We can't actually say that "more voters have put 'their faith and trust' in Gingrich". What we can say is that more voters have expressed a preference for Gingrich than Santorum, in the current mix. It could be that every Gingrich supporter would also put their faith and trust in Santorum, but they just like Gingrich better. And if it is also true that the only reason Santorum people support him is because they could never support Gingrich, then what we have is a case where "2nd-choice" votes would push strongly to the lower-ranked contender.
We can't know which is true, unfortunately. You could get closer if we actually voted ranks rather than 1st-choice. The advantage of voting ranks is that you get a candidate who is the most acceptable to the organization. The disadvantage is you don't necessarily get the favored choice of the plurality of the organization.
Romney is a great example though of this. Assuming he has a ceiling of 40%, he is "1st-choice" of the plurality; but if you took into account 2nd choices, and if it was the case (it's not) that no Gingrich or Santorum voter would choose Romney, then we'd find that either Gingrich or Santorum were the consensus "acceptable" pick.
If I were to make an argument for a candidate, and I'm not quite ready to do so yet, I would argue (and would suggest Rush Limbaugh has said this in not so many words), that Santorum is the candidate who has the most overall "acceptability" in the republican party. He may not be first choice, but many Romney supporters could accept him, and many Gingrich supporters could accept him. They wouldn't be "happy", but they would be satistifed.
Then the question is, are we better off with a candidate who satisfies 80% of the party, or who energizes 40% and disgusts 40%? I don't say because I don't know if that is where we are, but it looks like it could be. BTW, Ron Paul is just a microcosim of this, a guy who is wildly loved by 10-15%, and vilified by a majority, so he'll never be the nominee, but he'll always be around. I take some satisfaction that Santorum has beaten Paul in the last two primaries.
“The Truth Regarding Santorums Endorsement of Arlen Specter
Posted on October 12, 2011 by Admin
The reason I endorsed Arlen Specter is because we were going to have two Supreme Court nominees coming up, said Santorum. I got a commitment from Arlen Specter that no matter who George W. Bush would nominate, he would support that nominee.
The former senator didnt win over everyone with that, and bristled a bit at the end of his answer. You questioned my judgment, and you have every right to do so. But please dont question my intention to do whats right for those little babies.
I would reiterate that sentiment. You may think the decision was not a good one, but it was a decision made because Rick Santorum believed it was what he needed to do in order to ensure that judges who respect the right to life would not be impeded in their confirmation hearings. Apparently, this did not rankle Pat Toomey as much as it seems to rankle Santorums current poltical opponents considering that Toomey subsequently endorsed Rick Santorum in his bid for re-election. Meanwhile, Santorums record clearly and solidly indicates that he is a true believer in conservative principles across the board.”
I like Newt, too, just not as much as Rick Santorum, but why did Newt endorse RINO Dede?
Santorum endorsed CONSERVATIVE Hoffmann.
Don’t have double standards. None of them are perfect, but some of them are excellent.
If he had conservative principles, he would be fly fishing instead of sabotaging our only shot at a conservative president.
It’s Newt’s turn.
Unfortunately, some Republicans debate like libDems.
FL is a moderate state, and maybe even leaning liberal, which is why Romney did so well, and Newt and Santorum did not.
Turn in an empty ballot.
Rich Santorum attacked Romney so eloquently on Romneycare that many said that Santorum won that debate!
Do you have a link to Newt’s ACU rating?
BOTH Newt and Santorum received great ratings, but Rick Santorum’s rating was a bit lower, probably because he voted AGAINST NAFTA. Voting against NAFTA is a good thing, but some “conservatives” don’t think so.
The entire "Debate" series is proof of that. The MSM has stage-managed the entire affair, directing the candidates to act like blithering idiots, and then accurately ... for once ... faithfully reporting the stupidity and internecine assassinations. Brav-frickin'-0.
In the meantime, no Republican has shown himself to be a leader with a PROGRAM or a coherent PLAN. Motherhood (as in "I ain't gonna pay for killin' no li'l helpless babies.") and Apple Pie (God Bless the Red White and Blue, Omma real "conservative" patriot true!) ain't a coherent plan for saving this Republic from Euro-Socialism.
The Republican Party Establishment are "Fabian" Socialists. All they promise (hopefully) is to deliver us to Socialism at a somewhat slower pace than the Democrats, while both parties are firmly dedicated to protecting the interests that financially support them from Socialism's ravages.
With the astounding growth of a welfare benefits-dependent Third World population within our borders and the increased dumbing-down of the tattooed, pierced, and obese electorate, which cannot comprehend the looming economic catastrophe, we are heading for the rocks of history faster than that Italian ocean liner.
Ain't nowhere in The Constitution that says we are supposed to last forever or that we are under some blessèd dispensation from civil wars. Good luck, everybody.
I'll get Ann Coulter to explain that to you. The fact that Mitt believes he will become a god on another planet and wears special undergarments does not mean that he belongs to a cult.
If you live in Massachusetts, you simply must, must I say, believe in and support gay marriage to the point of offering all those quaint Bed-and-Breakfasts a tax break on linen changes.
And Romney is not pro-abortion, except when speaking before a pro-abortion crowd ... and he doesn't believe it should be mandatory except in some cases, which he will explain to you after the election.
I suppose it is clear to you that I am a fervent supporter of Romney for President. Of Utah. Maybe out there in the clear desert air, they will understand this man.
I should have mentioned that step — we are electronic, but I beleive it can be done.
The problem is that our elections are pretty efficient, and they don’t report a lot of extraneous information. For example, when you CAN vote absentee, if the name you give doesn’t look “real”, they just count it as “other”, and they don’t report absentee counts other than the total.
I’m not sure they will report the total ballots cast, and there’s no write-in so you can’t even generate a report of “other” like you usually could.
I may have to vote Ron Paul.