Santorum Delivers a GOP Stunner [Shoe-String Budget: Clean Sweep: Hat-Trick: Wins MN; MO, and CO!]

Wall St. J ^ | February 07, 2012 | NEIL KING JR. And DANNY YADRON

[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%.

[American Constitutionalist]

"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... "

And that there in is the problem, past election results ...
But, you know what ? some of you of those who can't stand Rick Santorum will never be persuaded anyway.... so it's a lost cause on you guys otherwise..

[American Constitutionalist]

" 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... " Bla, Bla, Bla bla bla, Bla, bla.... mombo jumbo.

What's the matter ? to many sour grapes ? not a classy loser ? sore loserman ?

[American Constitutionalist]

" 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.

" It is unfortunate. "

It's because of sour grapes, sore losers, not classy in losing.

[American Constitutionalist]

" I threw my calculations away "

Who cares about YOUR calculations and opinions ?

I don't, and many people here don't.

Here is 50 cents and you can call someone who cares...

[dixiechick2000]

You are such a nice guy. Thank you. You have no idea how much I respect you. ;o)

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

I did. And I still think he comes across with a sneering attitude towards those who don't share his exact views. To his base, that translates as him being stalwart, standing on principle, etc. But the key to electability is to be able to frame your principles and positions in a manner that is convincing to the undecided. They may be mistaken on some issues, but they're not bad people or idiots for having their views. To me, Santorum comes across as dogmatic across the board, and I think that alienates people.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

You make a good point about Santorum's past support of Romney. Unfortunately, all three of these guys stink as candidates. That's the reality, which is why all of these threads are more full of negative comments than positive ones.

Santorum is a sanctimonious, dogmatic lightweight, Newt is a nutbag, and Romney is a slimy gameshow host. I hate to say it, but that's how I see it.

But all three are so much superior to Obama that it isn't funny. The one fortunate truth is that the tea party/conservative/anti-ObamaCare sentiment is so strong within the GOP right now that any GOP nominee would have to sing that tune after the election, or be completely abandoned by his own party and guarantee lame-duck status in his first term.

I don't like any of them, but any of them will get my vote in November.

[altura]

Who is this Buddy Roemer of whom you speak? Is he a joke or does he exist?

[DoughtyOne]

You have no idea how much I respect you. ;o)

I'm not sure that I share that opinion about now..., posting on a forum where my voice has been silenced, people I respect sent packing.

We trash the GOPe for not listening to the rank and file Conservative party loyalists, and then watch as some folks do their damnedest to emulate them here on the forum.

I grow weary of this schizoid behavior. This has NEVER made the forum more sound in the past, and yet here we are again.

I have met the enemy, and sometimes they are us. That is quite demoralizing.

[altura]

I hear you! And I agree with you. I like Newt but I also fear his tendency to get loopy at times. I like him better than I like Santorum.

But who did we start out with?

With Obama hanging like an overripe fruit, we chose to send out the lame and the halt to vie for the nomination.

Huntsman?
Cain double ??
Bachmann - viable until she turned hysterical
Paul - oh, well, you know
Romney - needs another toy - might be fun to be president.
Newt - might as well
Santorum - might as well, can’t get another decent job
Perry- excellent man but negative lies and early debate flops took him down.

So we’re down to three. I will vote for who among them wins and I have zero respect for all the self righteous nuts around here who will vote for zero because they don’t like one of them.

[katiedidit1]

Counting your chickens before they hatch:)

[altura]

Oh, well, this is all academic anyway because I just heard Karl Rove say that the Santorum victory was meaningless because virtually no delegates were involved and Romney didn’t choose to participate in a big way.

He also said that Newt’s avowed plan to sweep the South won’t work because there are not that many delegates left and he isn’t on the ballot in one state.

So, I guess we should just go home ...

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

I was on board with Newt, and voted for him in Jim's poll. But he lost me with the space colony thing, so now, I'm agnostic on which one of these guys should win the nomination.

And I agree -- the slate of candidates was weak from the start. I knew about Perry but hadn't seen him in action until the debates, and my wife and I both dropped our jaws when we actually heard/saw him. Looks like a President, but there ain't nobody home. He was the real-life version of the Dubya caricature.

Still, any one of those three will be a much better President than Obama. Romney is a funny guy. I heard him speak at the Federalist Society national convention a few years back, and he was brilliant. But how do you reconcile that with what he did as Governor?

My suspicion is that the Romney we're seeing right now is the real Romney -- pro-capitalism, etc. He talks with the zeal of someone who feels he can finally say exactly what he thinks, rather than what he needs to say/do to get elected in Massachusets. But the fact is that conservatives are fully justified in viewing him with a lot of skepticism based on his record in Massachusetts.

He can't come out and say "that wasn't the real me, this is", because that would look horrible, like he'll say anything to get elected. Which may be true. Funny thing is that it may be the truth, and he may be good once in office. But that's asking a lot of folks to take a major leap in faith. Anyway, I can't support him in the primary, but it is that hope that lets me vote for him in November if he's the nominee over Obama.

At this point, I'm not sure who I'll pull the lever for in the primaries.

[katiedidit1]

altura, Rick Perry is working for Newt in Texas. Perry’s endorsement may have a huge impact in the Lone Star State. Also, we know Newt will carry Georgia and would bet many other southern states.. so, Santorum and Newt are not on the Va ballot but it is still going to be a long hard road for Mitt to win over 1,000 delegates.
I chose to ignore Rove and Coulter..don’t even listen to them any more. They are shaking because the gop establishment is being ignored by many voters and to think of all the money Mitt has spent!

[sickoflibs]

RE :”I find the same to be true of Newt supporters. They tend to overlook huge failings on a host of critical conservative issues not to mention his electability in a general election.”

Well that is because Newt would kick Obama’s behind in a national debate. He is brilliant and can cream anybody.

Newt does say he has a problem in that he can't beat a 'dishonest' opponent in a debate. But that shouldn't be a problem with Obama will it? Would Obama refuse to fight fair?

[altura]

Because of liberal judges messing with Texas’ attempt at redistricting and the ensuing hassle, Texas won’t have a primary until very late. No one knows when.

Rick Perry is working for Newt but Texas votes so late it may be decided by then.

[Steelfish]

With Perry’s poll numbers tanking in Texas, he would not add a dime’s difference to Gingrich’s faltering campaign. If Santorum carries either AZ or MI, it’s all over for Gingrich and possibly Romney.

[Steelfish]

With Perry’s poll numbers tanking in Texas, he would not add a dime’s difference to Gingrich’s faltering campaign. If Santorum carries either AZ or MI, it’s all over for Gingrich and possibly Romney.

[publana]

Malarky. Texas is full of TEA Party folks. They won’t support an anti-TEA Party candidate. I know I won’t.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KEeHDCsetLc

[dforest]

“I find the same to be true of Newt supporters. They tend to overlook huge failings on a host of critical conservative issues not to mention his electability in a general election.”

Ain’t that the truth. Newt hasn’t been a conservative for years. He just talks that way because he gets attention for it now. People don’t trust Newt because he hasn’t been inclined to be conservative in many years. So...he didn’t bother with it. He was out sitting with Nancy for cap and trade, pitching healthcare mandates, and endorsing traitor DeDe Scozzafava. Oh, and Reagan era dead.

No thanks. I see an opportunist.