Skip to comments.Turnout Proves That Mitt Really Did Scorch the Earth
Posted on 02/09/2012 2:32:12 AM PST by Servant of the Cross
The real story of the three results from Tuesday night is not that Rick Santorum picked up some wins -- though that is big. No, the real story is that three states held votes and nobody came. Almost nobody, that is. Consider that the total turnout for Missouri, Colorado, and Minnesota combined was barely over half of the turnout of South Carolina alone and -- worse yet -- barely over half the turnout for the same three states in 2008.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
You said Sanctimonium!
While I don’t share your extensive pessimism with regard to Congress, I believe the current OccupierinChief will keep prolong his OccupyWH if Willard is the nominee.
This particular thread has some amazing analysis! It is why I always check FR for news and opinion.
I agree with this piece. The pundit’s nastiness and the nastiness by Romney is causing me to tune out to some degree and I’m a political junkie. Romney has shown that he is a nasty piece of work and will do anything to win. He has not run a moral campaign.
I do, thanks x 2.
With due respect, you are wrong - and wrong for two very specific reasons.
A: The turn out figures are compared to the same states in the last cycle where they also had a caucus, so the low turn out is a valid apples to apples comparison. This is not my first analysis piece.
B: The low vote turn out is being ignored by the media and 50 thousand folks in Minnesota are being given the same cash as 620 thousand folks in South Carolina, which is counter productive in trying to actually pick the legitimate Republican nominee, therefore it is an extremely valid point and worth mentioning.
>> This guy is a good writer.
He’s a Freeper, too.
Watching Boehner and McConnell our leaders in the House and Senate is enough to dishearten any Republican.
Then we have the perennial loser Romney, the disgraced Speaker Gingrich, The Spectre loving Santorum and the Crazed Uncle Ron Paul running for President against Bracko(The Muslim Mussolini) Bama.
Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?!
I've got to disagree.
1. Santorum's criticism's have been based on policy differences and not on fidelity, craziness, or ethics. That was the heart of Romney's push. Spelling out policy differences is NOT negative campaigning.
2. Santorum did not have the money to run an effective negative ad campaign even if he had wanted to. Dollar wise his campaign was on life support.
I totally agree with the notion that Santorum and Gingrich have strengths in different parts of the country. I also agree that right now the mission is to defeat Mitt Romney.
I think Santorum can win in the rust belt and that Gingrich can win in the south. Those states + proportional states prevent Romney from winning. If either Newt or Rick break out and forge a big lead, then I'm ok with either of them.
They are both conservatives. Romney has never been a conservative.
Probably because I don’t see much hope in this mess.
Sure I would love to see a Republican rise like the Phoenix , develop some courage and send this CS out to pasture.
If you see anything please let me know.
“Santorum’s criticism’s have been based on policy differences and not on fidelity, craziness, or ethics. That was the heart of Romney’s push. Spelling out policy differences is NOT negative campaigning.”
That simply isn’t true. Not only has Santorum attacked on a personal level, (calling Newt “crass”, suggesting he is irresponsible, dishonest, pandering, isn’t really conservative, etc), but he’s distorted the actual policies he has disagreed with. For example, distorting Newt’s ideas on the moon colony. In fact, he’s done that with every candidate so far. I noticed it against Cain, and it continues against Newt.
I know he simply hasn’t had a lot of negative ads or a lot of attention in the media, but I’ve seen the vast majority of his comments. They are not all positive. And they do NOT agree that Newt is a conservative. It’s weird, since early on he WAS positive with Newt, but then, when anyone starts to surge, he basically turns into this guy who FINDS reasons to disagree with even the most minor things.
But, for Santorum to suggest it is blatant politics is not a personal attack on Newt. It's an attack on the timing of Newt's big idea.
Santorum also thinks that many of Gingrich's positions in the past are not conservative. I've been defending Newt for some time now, so I know that Santorum has legitimate questions. Anyone defending Newt's climate or mandate comments has to make positive assumptions about Newt's intentions. It is not illogical for someone else to make different assumptions.
I agree with you about Newt, and I’ll give you the distinction of Newt Crass vs crass politics. Nevertheless, it’s attacking the motivations of Newt, essentially stating that he is insincere and willing to say whatever to win. He also suggested it was a big government idea, even though Newt was specifically arguing for something completely different.
Santorum has done this many times in the past as well. For example, turning to the crowd in reference to 999 and representing it as a tax increase.
None of the examples I can give are concrete, but when you add them up, he comes off as either a guy who is basically unwilling to acknowledge something good, is unable to discern what someone is actually saying about their policy, or someone who intentionally distorts it and questions the motives/conservatism/intelligence of the one offering it.
It appearss we want nearly the same thing.
We both want Romney to lose.
You want Newt to win.
I want Newt or Santorum to win or to form a team preventing Romney from winning.
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.