Posted on 02/07/2012 10:36:59 PM PST by Steelfish
Santorum Delivers a GOP Stunner Former Senator Wins in Minnesota, Missouri; Romney Campaign Plays Down Nonbinding Contests
By NEIL KING JR. And DANNY YADRON
DENVER—Rick Santorum jolted the Republican presidential race Tuesday by winning nominating contests in Missouri and Minnesota, puncturing Mitt Romney's claim to be the unstoppable front-runner.
Mr. Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator, was running neck and neck with Mr. Romney in preliminary returns from Colorado, a state Mr. Romney won by a wide margin in 2008.
With about 70% of the Colorado vote counted, Mr. Santorum had 38%, to 36% for Mr. Romney. Four years ago, Mr. Romney carried Colorado with 60% of the vote.
Mr. Santorum's twin victories in the Midwest will give his campaign a much-needed burst of momentum and may stir doubt about Mr. Romney's abilities to woo conservatives to his side in important electoral states such as Missouri. So far, Mr. Romney has won in states where he has devoted significant campaign time and advertising dollars.
Mr. Santorum won 55% of the Missouri vote, while Mr. Romney followed with 25%. Texas Rep. Ron Paul was trailing with 12%. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich wasn't on the Missouri ballot.
Mr. Santorum's Missouri victory margin of almost 75,000 votes over Mr. Romney was nearly 29,000 more than Mr. Romney's combined Iowa and Nevada total.
While the Tuesday results didn't directly award any of the delegates needed to claim the GOP nomination, they showed voters rejecting Mr. Romney even in states where he had performed well four years ago.
Mr. Romney had carried Minnesota in 2008 but placed third there on Tuesday. With 85% of precincts in, Mr. Santorum had 45% of the vote, while Mr. Paul had 27%. Mr. Romney had 17% of the vote and Mr. Gingrich claimed 11%.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I think we should refer to Romney as Robama.
The poster is just an ignoramus what a RINO really is, and I don’t mean the Republican In Name Only thing
I’m not scoffing at his power. I understand it is vast and he has the media.
I just meant thinking of the man personally as a pit bull is a silly image as he doen’t look as though he could fight his way out of a paper bag.
if Santorum drops out , Romney will win by a squeaker.
If Newt drops out Santorum will win by an overwaelming landslide
statements like this are just plain STUPID
Santorum would win by a landslide against Obama
You may be ‘old and tired’ (although I’m older and currently tireder because of a recent attempt to get fit) but at least you’re making sense.
I don’t see why Newt supporters (and I’m one) don’t take their arguments elsewhere for 5 minutes and let us enjoy a conservative victory over Romney.
Looking at turnout... the GOP is about as enthusiasitc as a bale of hay
Rush comes close to a Santorum endorsement.
He said this today according to Politico:
“And they’re doing it because in Santorum’s case, as I’ve been saying the past couple of weeks, if you’re looking for a conservative who is the least corrupted, who has the least number of periods of wandering off the reservation, if you’re looking for a conservative who’s never sat down with Nancy Pelosi on the couch for any reason, you get Rick Santorum,” he said. “And people know this.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72622.html
Capitalizing all the letters in a word does not make it any more true. Particularly when you offer no analysis or facts to support your position.
I've got a couple of problems with Santorum's electability. Part of it is simply his look/demeanor. To me, he comes across as pained/grumpy/angry/whiny much of the time. I don't think that sells well. People tend to prefer some level of optimism, and Santorum is pretty poor at projecting that.
I've also met the guy personally a couple of years ago, at a lunch where there were just a few of us at the table. Decent guy, but to me, he comes across as rigid and humorless. Never been as underwhelmed by the personality of a supposedly major politician as I was by his.
I also think that his hardline stance on social issues, and his inability (at least to me) to articulate them persuasively, will really hurt him among some swing voters. Some people are good at taking moral positions and making them sound reasonable to third parties. Others just sound like they're repeating dogman. Saying "that's just what is right and that's what I believe" is fine for the head of a family, but if you want to win votes, you've got to be able to do more than that.
In case you think I'm a "Romneybot" or "Newtbot", I think they're both set to lose as well.
Actually, my assertion, by explanation, was: it’s easy to win when you’re not running against anyone else competing for the same voters. But mostly it was just a dash of reality: if Newt had won when Sanctimonium wasn’t competing for the same voters, I’d only feel marginally positive, and realize it was a fluke... but I also understand Sanctimonium’s supporters have been a long time in the desert... I spent quite a bit of time there myself, I support Newt.
I am not encouraging anyone to drop out and I have been a Santorum fan from the beginning.
Each candidate has the ability to shape the others and make a stronger candidate emerge at the end of the process.
I am just not in any hurry to see this process brought to a early conclusion. When the primary ends too soon, before the process plays out, too many primary voters are disenfranchised and then it is very difficult to win their support in November.
Remember McCain? I know, if we didn’t get McCain, it would have been Romney, but it is unlikely that the Democrats would have rammed through Obamneycare, for a Republican president.
Yea, sure...that's why 134,000+ came out in Missouri to vote for Santorum in a caucus election that "didn't matter".
Romney wins with a divided conservative vote. Without Gingrich, Santorum can once and for all deal Romney a knock-out punch in MI and with the wind at his back grab Texas- the big enchilada- on Super Tuesday. We need to end this nomination process early and gear up for Obama in November
Great first comment! Welcome to FR. You should post this in it’s own thread.
I was responding to a post about Newt being unpopular with women.
My statement is my personal opinion that women don’t tend to care much for the “other woman”...referring to Newt’s affair with her while he was still married.
It would have been Newt 36 - Sanctimonium 19... [with Newt on the ballot]
Based on some mythical calculation.
That is laughable.
Actually, my assertion, by explanation, was: it’s easy to win when you’re not running against anyone else competing for the same voters.
But all 4 candidates were on the ballot in MN and CO and Santorum won there as well, and while Newt wasn't on the ballot in Missouri to take his 15%, Santorum dominated the voting by a huge margin. Except in your mind.
IF the candidate is courageous enough to really get there and call him out, great things can happen. You have to talk about him the way Kerry used to talk about Bush, except that everything that you’d talk about would be painfully obvious to everyone except for the emperor and his flying monkeys. Then you’d start TALKING about the denial they are in, the crime, the corruption, the racism, favoritism, cronyism, communism, muslimism, birtherism, and build a case that he belongs in a jail cell, not occupying the black hut.
Not only are you deficient as a mind-reader, you seem to have a reading comprehension problem, because I also said, in that same post you quoted from, this:
"CO and MN - true Sanctimonium wins, and props on those! Anybody who beats Willard Your Worst Nightmare - in any way - gets applause from me..."
You Sanctimonium supporters seem to have a real problem with when it comes to telling the truth about, and misquoting, others. But, I guess when your candidate is called by God, as Tricy Ricky stated a few days, those human conventions like honesty can be dispensed with...
Man, that was just an outright lie - totally taken out of context - and conveying a meaning about me that was patently false... sound familiar? learn to defend your candidate without lying about others in the process...
I didnt realize that thanks, but W pulled it off as a virtual unknown with a speech impediment and minimal charisma but political savvy, I didnt realize Santorum has Zero charisma and zero savvy , that could be a problem. A presidential candidate needs to be a good actor
I know what you wrote - I was pointing out the internal inconsistency of Santorum’s resounding win in 3 states with your belief that in an alternate universe Newt really would have won Missouri and crushed Santorum in the process.
God bless! Thank you for the kind words.
Please don't misinterpret my words, I said:
"Using the past election totals in the other states - I have - as clearly as I could with what I considered reliable figures..."
It would have been Newt 36 - Sanctimonium 19...
I was commenting on 1 race, MO, based on past election totals, and applied some valid math to it, which you snarkily called, mythical - and applying those parameters to what Newt's win would have been in MO...
Nobody knows if CO and MN are flukes, real game changers, or just the usual shift, that remains to be seen. The past results are already in the fabric of this race...
The CO and MN results were clearly available, and I actually congratulated Sanctimonium on them, which you conveniently forgot to post.
You know, Sanctimonium supporters are just as duplicitous, rigid, and humorless as he is... People like you, and your candidate, with your dishonesty, judgmental holier-than-thou attitudes, are not going to be very well received in the general by normal human beings. But keep chugging away...
I congratulated you, I postulated some math, which I happen to be fairly good at, which you snarkily called mythical... and you quoted me out of context - Just another day with the Sanctimonium campaign... not gonna work. Not gonna work. People recognize true love and humility... even when they aren't Christians.
ping
A used car salesman is a good choice against obama. In my book, he'd have more credibility.
I'd vote for (almost) anyone opposed to obama.
Yes, you're right, that is where I started laughing.
I postulated some math, which I happen to be fairly good at, which you snarkily called mythical...
Yup, that too... I'd love to see you post your calculations.
Thanks for the ping to those links. That is a good ad. I would love to see Santorum take the nomination. It’s nice to see common sense spring up in Colorado again too. It has been a while since there has been much sign of it.
Well, back in 2008, people didn’t know Romney as well. I was among the Freepers who pointed out his major failings while governor of Massachusetts. But a lot of Freepers weren’t up to speed on him yet. And it was a fairly common delusion that he was an experienced businessman who could fix the economy. He was still boasting about being the man who rode in and fixed the Salt Lake City Olympics, and people were fooled by that.
It took quite a lot of doing to convince people that he was pro-gay marriage and pro-abortion, because he was saying the opposite, and his record wasn’t as widely known back then.
Anyway, there was quite a fight over Romney here in FR, with quite a few Freepers insisting that he was a good guy. So, I can understand why Rick may have spoken well of his business sense back then, and not known that he was an abortion lover.
You are really mean, you know that?
I threw my calculations away, and don’t plan to do them again for the likes of you..
If you truly do support Sanctimonium, and I’ve no doubt you do, you might be better off not letting people know, you aren’t exactly the kind of advertisement he needs... unless you are trolling for pharisees...
Just a little reading material you might enjoy.
A real look at the behind-closed-doors Sanctimonium v. perfect-public-persona Sanctimonium.
And, re Newt’s moonbase folly - all he is really trying to do is keep America safe and competitive... but you- and your candidate - woule have to be aware of the state of the world to know that:
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpps/news/russia-us-moon-base-nasa-dpgonc-20110119-to-_17194074
“Russia is talking with the US and Europe on plans to create a manned research base on the moon, the head of the Russian space agency Roscosmos said Thursday.
Roscosmos is discussing the possibilities for a permanent moon base with officials from NASA and the European Space Agency, the agency’s chief, Vladimir Popovkin said.
“We don’t want man to just step on the moon,” Popovkin told Vesti FM radio station, according to the Ria Novosti news agency. “Today, we know enough about it, we know that there is water in its polar areas ... we are now discussing how to begin [the moon’s] exploration with NASA and the European Space Agency.”
He said the plan was either to set up a base on the moon or launch a station to orbit around it.”
Russia also is planning to send two unmanned mission to the moon by 2020, Popovkin said.
China moonbase 2002:
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/22/181737.shtml
That was a wonderful and deeply passionate defense of life. Anyone who says there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats please show me a DemonRat making a speech like that in the House or Senate.
You are right. I said as much in an earlier post. Newt supporters, more than anybody, should know what it likes to get a cool drink after so long in the desert. And we shouldn’t begrudge Santorum’s supporters that...
Having that said, I do plan to bust my butt working so my candidate will whoop yours bad... :)
Actually, never mind the others, I'd be more inclined to say that Obama is a hyena.
If Zero is a hyena, then Newt is a Cape Buffalo. Possibly outside of the Hippo the most dangerous animal in Africa.
VERY passionate argument! I am even more impressed by this conservative man than I was before!
“...Santorum is not a great choice against 0....”
So says you, Mr. 1-29-2012 signup.
Fiddlestick
Romney's flip-flops on abortion and contraception were well documented in 2008. Mike Huckabee denounced them in the debates. Romneycare was signed in 2006
I have to conclude that Santorum is NOT as principled as he pretends to be. Only lack of judgement could have made him to say what he said about Romney back in 2008:
“In a few short days, Republicans from across this country will decide more than their party’s nominee. They will decide the very future of our party and the conservative coalition that Ronald Reagan built. Conservatives can no longer afford to stand on the sidelines in this election, and Gov. Romney is the candidate who will stand up for the conservative principles that we hold dear.”
After reading that, I just cannot support him now.
Newt is the only genuine conservative candidate in the field.
Imagine if Bush had warned pastors across America on 9/16/01 that they could not preach in any way to make it sound as if the USA had brought the previous week’s destruction upon itself, none of the ‘chickens coming home to roost’ business. That would have gone over well.
I'm curious as to your take on his support of Democrat, Dede Scozzafava, and how that makes him 'the only genuine conservative.'
As I see it, both Santorum and Gingrich are conservatives with some flaws. It all depends on which flaws you think are more significant when as a conservative, you make your choice between the two.
Your statement, in and of itself, is quite flawed. Rick is a conservative, and a genuine one as well.
(A lot of conservatives saw Mitt as the least offensive of a very offensive field in 2008. That doesn't make them liberals, any more than voting for reluctantly for McCain over Obama makes one a liberal).
It is unfortunate.
Very nice.
I think he’s the strongest choice that’s in the race.
Who is your candidate?
Mine is Newt, but I’ll take Santorum with a spoonful of sugar.
Who is your candidate?
Mine is Newt, but I’ll take Santorum with a spoonful of sugar.
OK, this is getting old. I asked Rick Santorum about Snarlin Arlin; he said we could not lose Specter’s Senate Judiciary seat and had promises from him about getting conservative judges out of committee and on way to Senate approval, which he considered too important to gamble. Besides, Rick’s a good Reagan Republican, and believes in the Eleventh.
OK, this is getting old. I asked Rick Santorum about Snarlin Arlin; he said we could not lose Specter’s Senate Judiciary seat and had promises from him about getting conservative judges out of committee and on way to Senate approval, which he considered too important to gamble. Besides, Rick’s a good Reagan Republican, and believes in the Eleventh.
I got nothing against Rubio; except he is not Constitutionally qualified.
So the guy on his 3rd wife with 60% unfavorables is MORE electable? Or the swiss bank account guy in an election year when Obama team is just drooling to run against the “1%” types?
By the end of this process we may find that Santorum is the most electable of the choices.
Certainly the latest Ras poll suggests that as a possibility.
First, Welcome Aboard!! Second, loved that video; that’s why I love Rick Santorum.
“Santorum has not stunned me with his charisma, granted, but he’s a solid conservative, and is immune to Obama’s class warfare attack strategy (just mentally compare his vulnerability vs. Romney or even Newt...) Staunchly pro-life and family values will play big in flyover country where guys with a past like Newts are snickered about and guys like Romney are spotted as phonies a mile away.
I sure like what I’ve heard from Santorum lately. For sure he would be a contrast against Obama, not just “Obama-lite”.”
I got the same vibe, a real positive vibe, listening to his Iowa acceptance speech at the beginning of January.
None of the candidates are perfect but Santorum is best positioned to really take on Obama and make it about the issues and about freedom vs big govt and not his personal life (though the liberals will try).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.