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 ...
Just the people showing their enthusiasm for the GOP and their favorite son...
I must be “American Thinker” level. This has been on my mind ever since Florida. Mitt can only win by depressing turnout in Florida, but that will kill him in the main event. Stupid, ugly, and losing strategy.
Newt is the reason that SC was a record primary turnout. Mitt cannot have an excited base or he loses the primary.
Excellent analysis. Thanks for posting.
Just the people showing their lack of real enthusiasm for any of the four lessers in the race. Only desperation could drive anyone to believe any of the four are charismatic enough to lead a movement. I remain hopeful, though, that the people will be sick enough of charisma come November to elect whoever the eventual nominee is.
This guy is a good writer. Probably the only time I’ve seen someone notice that Santorum has been just as nasty as everyone else.
Rush Limbaugh and the rest are out of freakin touch.
Newt isn’t out. He just needs to refocus his message and ignore Romney from here on out. Let him and Santorum suicide on each other, which I suspect will happen once the Romney Pretty Hate Machine collides with the radioactive ore known as Sanctimonium.
Let Romney and Santorum* implode with each other.
Wow! I realized it was bad, but not that bad!
I certainly hope Romney has done himself in, but I doubt it. I don't think he will attack Santorum, however, and I think they will both continue to attack Gingrich, because the tactic has obviously worked to nearly fatally taint him in the mind of the average voter (the type that doesn't watch campaign addresses or really follow the issues).
Romney's (and Santorum's) victories have come only through this negative campaigning and I don't see any reason for them to stop it now. Romney has inexhaustible funds, probably from a combination of his personal wealth, Wall Street and the Mormon church, and while people characterize Santorum's campaign as poor, he seems to be getting money from somewhere to run these ads and has been all along, even since the very start.
What we fail to take into account is that the GOP elite long ago resigned itself to losing this election. That's their strategy and they're sticking by it and Romney's the man they have chosen to lose it, by golly!
http://www.intellicast.com/Travel/Weather/Snow/Cover.aspx is the answer. See Snow Cover ~ and it’s pretty obvious Colorado and Minnesota have some now and had some Tuesday. Missouri simply had a DULL event ~ notice that Gingrich wasn’t even on the ballot there.
I really hope you're wrong here. But if you're right then we're toast. We'll have a bare majority in congress and a president who'll have no more public accountability, so he'll rule like one of his czars. Nothing will improve, 0bamacare will be cemented in stone and the new congress will be content to cut deals with 0bama , who'll be essentially a dictator.
What I see is that conservatives see this election as America's last chance, but they're becoming demoralized by a GOP who just wants to cut deals.
Yes, bad weather always does have an effect. But we didn’t have snow in Florida, and our turnout was very poor.
We had non-stop ads from the Romney campaign portraying Gingrich as an evil lunatic and I think people just couldn’t take it anymore.
Another factor, IMHO, is that the Florida primary was the moment when all the supposed conservatives in the media started coming out and annointing Romney as the “inevitable one.” It really confused people to see figures they had always thought of as leaders in conservative thought endorsing the most liberal of the candidates.
The Rush Limbaugh/Ann Coulter effect is something we shouldn’t overlook, because I think a lot of the committed conservative voters, the type who usually get to the polls no matter what, were baffled and simply decided to stay home.
Mitt knows that this is his last chance to become President - no one will listen to a three time loser in 2016 or 2020.
The other candidates seem to realize this too.
As I have told my local republican party numerous times I want a candidate that I can talk positively about. if the candidate is selected because its his turn or he ain't .... I have no reason to talk positively about him nor donate my time and money. So far I have been ignored. So 2012 I will vote against Obama and in doing so my local republican party will think, again, they were right.
I think that was true in the last election, too. When it was clear that enthusiasm for McCain was so low that it barely looked as if the GOP was even pretending to run against Obama, the decision was made to bring in Palin as the VP candidate. But it didn't work because the GOP establishment almost immediately turned on her and tried to destroy her as a threat to the status quo.
The Mittbots behind changing Florida's primary schedule KNEW the demographic would change and improve his opportunity, and then when he promised to have a Cuban American VP on the ticket with him, that amplified that vote substantially!
No, we are not going to have a Cuban American VP on the ticket ~ not with Romney, not with anyone.
Florida's Republicans can improve their Primary's popularity by holding it later in the year.
If Romney is on the ticket
the DNC will retake the House and hold the senate.
This “low turnout” crap is a lot of hooey.
Colorado and Minnesota had such low turnouts BECAUSE THEY ARE CAUCUSES, PEOPLE!!! They ALWAYS have low turnout.
The one that had exceptionally low turnout is MIssouri... BECAUSE THEY CANCELLED THE CAUCUSES!!!!!
Have some good debates with nonmedia moderators. Divide the country into four areas, do away with caucus cr#$, vote four different dates with only Republican voters allowed (no open deals). Turnout will be there. And the people will be the ones to decide, not the media, party biggies etc.
Actually, I know a lot of people here in MO. who didn’t vote because it wasn’t going to officially count. It’s that simple. Come to think of it, the last primary there was a heated contest on the Democrat side, not so this year so why would many turn out on that side? Personally, I think that has more to do with it than Mittens scorched earth policy. Come time for the general election we will come out in droves to vote against Obama!
MO. didn’t cancel a caucus, this is the first year we are having one! The RNC said we would lose half our delegates if we had our primary before March. As our state law requires us to hold our primary in Feb. the legislature voted to change the date to March but our governor vetoed it. The primary became meaningless & a caucus is set for March 17. Is there any wonder turnout was so low?
I agree and you’re welcome. I’ve pinged the author (a fellow FReeper) who I’m sure will appreciate your note.
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.