Skip to comments.LIVE THREAD: Results in CO., MN., MO.
Posted on 02/07/2012 5:08:04 PM PST by Anti-Hillary
Open for discussion.
LOL!!! Dear Lord, posts like yours Annie make me bust with pride - for being a FReeper, AND an AMERICAN.
And thank you Lord, for strengthening us today, just as you gave strength and determination to the founders of this nation that was born in your Holy Name.
Oh WOW! Santorum’s add does indeed speak volumes...Wow! I am really impressed. HE’s showing visually what we all see hapening with the media, pundits, Drudge and all the rest on the Romney gravey train. Just WoW!
The notable bombast combined with lack of substance reminded me of certain Perry supporters (not all) before he dropped out.
Oh my.... you fill my heart, hoosiermama...Sometimes it feels like so long ago.
Washington D.C. September 12th, 2009.
Can you hear us now? Indeed, I believe they can.
Thank you Lord for strength.
ELECTION RESULTS: Pulaski County Presidential Preference Primary
By: Darrell Todd Maurina
PULASKI COUNTY, Mo. (Feb. 7, 2012) Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum was the blowout winner of the Pulaski County precincts for Tuesday's presidential preference primary, gathering more than 60 percent of the votes, more than double his closest competitor. While numerous candidates are on the ballot, the active Republican candidates are Mitt Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, Rick Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator, and Ron Paul, a Texas congressman. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich did not file the necessary paperwork to get his name on the ballot for the Missouri primary.
Santorum won every precinct in Pulaski County that voted on Tuesday, nearly all by a margin of at least two-to-one over Romney, who in all cases was his closest competitor. Paul was a distant third in the race. The one exception to that pattern was the absentee votes, which Romney won by a margin of 39 to 19.
Santorum’s victory margin of 62 percent in Pulaski County was even higher than his statewide Missouri victory margin of 55.2 percent. Santorum won every one of Missouri's counties; a statewide county-by-county report can be found at this link: http://www.sos.mo.gov/enrmaps/20120207/county_map.asp?party=rep
Tuesday's results are a presidential preference race which doesn't actually select delegates. Due to national Republican Party rules, Missouri would have lost half of its delegates to the Republican National Convention if the primary had selected the delegates, so when the Missouri legislature failed to agree on a later date for the primary, Missouri Republicans agreed to hold a later caucus on March 17 to select delegates to the April 21 congressional district conventions; delegates won't be bound to a specific candidate on March 17 unless a local rule is adopted to do so, but they identify their presidential candidate at the April 21 vote and are thereafter bound to that candidate on the first ballot of the Republican National Convention.
The Pulaski County caucuses are tentatively scheduled for 10 a.m. in the county courthouse basement. Locations of other Republican county caucuses and details on delegate selection can be found at this link: http://www.mogop.org/2012stateconvention/caucuses/
Countywide, Santorum won by a margin of 813 votes to 309 for Romney and 105 for Paul. No other candidate received more than 15 votes.
While Santorum won by large margins countywide, his victory margins were largest in the rural and more conservative northern parts of Pulaski County. In Crocker, he won by a six-to-one margin of 132 to 24 for Romney, with 12 for Paul; similar margins prevailed elsewhere with a four-to-one margin of 91 to 22 in Richland with 12 for Paul and almost three-to-one in Dixon with a 146 to 53 victory over Romney with 20 for Paul, and a margin of more than four-to-one in Laquey of 68 to 15 with 7 for Paul.
Even in the more urban precincts of Waynesville and Saint Robert, Santorum won big. In Waynesville, which is often the county's largest precinct by vote, Santorum won by a margin of 203 to 77 with 26 for Paul. In St. Robert, which includes Fort Leonard Wood votes, the margin was still two-to-one with 95 for Santorum, 47 for Romney and 11 for Paul.
Turnout was generally low throughout the county. Overall, only 1,495 or 6.88 percent of the county's 21,743 registered voters cast ballots, with turnout ranging from a low of 3.14 percent or 181 of 5,757 voters in St. Robert, where many voters are military personnel on Fort Leonard Wood who often don't cast ballots, to a high of more than 10 percent in Richland and Swedeborg. As is often the case, rural parts of Pulaski County with lower population had substantially higher turnout percentages.
Those vote totals were 36 or 11.6 percent of 313 registered voters in Swedeborg; 152 or 10.3 percent of 1,463 registered voters in Richland; 21 or 9.6 percent of 219 voters in Big Piney; 184 or 8.57 percent of 2,147 voters in Crocker; 74 or 8.3 percent of 894 registered voters in the Hooker precinct east of Saint Robert including the Highway 28 corridor and Devil's Elbow; 256 or 8.14 percent of 3,146 voters in Dixon; 104 or 6.04 percent of 1,723 voters in Laquey, and 326 or 5.36 percent of 6,081 voters in Waynesville.
While the Republican Party race was the only seriously contested race in Missouri, President Barack Obama had three challengers, Randall Terry, Darcy G. Richardson and John Wolfe, for the Democratic Party nomination, and five people in Pulaski County cast third-party ballots, two for uncommitted Constitution Party delegates (one each in Laquey and Waynesville), two for Libertarian Party candidate James Orland Ogle III (one each in Waynesville and via absentee ballot), and one Richland voter for an uncommitted Libertarian ballot.
As expected, Obama won overwhelmingly in the Democratic Party race, gaining a total of 136 voters or 76.8 percent of 177 Democratic Party ballots cast. Terry and Wolfe had five votes each with seven for Richardson and 24 for uncommitted delegates.
The total number of Democratic ballots was 11.8 percent of the countywide total, but substantially higher in some precincts. Absentee voters were 41.4 percent Democrats, totaling 58 of 140 ballots, followed by high percentages in the county's two smallest precincts, a quarter of Swedeborg’s 36 voters with nine casting Democratic ballots and three Democrats or 14.3 percent of voters in Big Piney precinct. In Waynesville, 22 or 12.1 percent of voters chose Democratic Party ballots, followed by 18 Democrats or 11.8 percent in Richland, 8 Democrats or 10.8 percent in Hooker, 18 Democrats or 9.9 percent in St. Robert, 10 Democrats or 9.3 percent in Laquey, 21 Democrats or 8.2 percent in Dixon, and 10 Democrats or 5.3 percent in Crocker.
I've been saying this for a while, though until tonight I didn't think it was realistic — I like the idea of Newt Gingrich as vice-president, where the responsibilities include serving as president of the Senate, though in modern history vice-presidents only rarely have presided.
It's not as if Gingrich, in his role as Speaker of the House, doesn't have a history of serving in the role of presiding officer of a house of Congress.
This could be especially helpful if the Democrats retain control of the Senate. Imagine Gingrich using parliamentary procedure to tangle regularly with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Gingrich, as a backbencher, used the then-new technology of C-Span to blow up long-encrusted “good-old-boy” collegiality in the House of Representatives. That's something he's good at. Imagine what he might be able to do in the Senate.
I received a press release from U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt last night saying that despite Santorum’s victory he expects that Romney will win the nomination.
Here's the text:
WASHINGTON, D.C. (Feb. 7, 2012) In light of tonight's presidential primary results in Missouri, please consider the following statement from U.S. Senator Roy Blunt:
“I congratulate my friend Rick Santorum on his win tonight, but the fact remains that this is a non-binding primary, meaning Missouri's delegates are still very much up for grabs. Mitt Romney has the organization and the resources to go the distance in this election, and I believe he'll ultimately win our party's nomination.
“Voters in Missouri and across America are deeply concerned about the state of the Obama Economy, including the record debt and out-of-control government spending that we've witnessed under this administration. Mitt Romney has the experience in the private sector and as governor to help turn our economy around, which is why I believe he's the most likely Republican candidate to win against President Obama this November.”
Writer33 is right.
It has not been at all clear what would happen with Gingrich votes if Gingrich were to leave the race (which I'm not advocating, by the way). With Gingrich not getting on the ballot in Missouri, this had the unintended and unexpected consequence of being the first situation where we saw what would happen in a three-way Romney-Santorum-Paul matchup. Apparently when confronted with the need to make an actual choice, large numbers of Gingrich voters decided to pull the lever for Santorum and not for Romney.
Missouri's voter dynamics being what they are (until recently when Missouri started to track more conservative, this was traditionally a “bellwether” state that was a good predictor of national trends because the state is partly southern, partly northern, partly urban and partly rural) this demonstration of what Gingrich voters will do if their candidate is not on the ballot may have broader relevance.
The Virginia race between Romney and Ron Paul will show what happens with a “not-Romney” vote. We all know that Ron Paul has a small core of dedicated supporters, and his percentages have been consistent throughout the races so far, but most Republicans **REALLY** don't like Paul.
If Paul wins Virginia it will send a very strong message that even though most Republicans don't like Ron Paul, they **REALLY REALLY REALLY** don't like Romney.
Gingrich missing the Missouri ballot deadline and everybody but Romney and Paul failing to get enough signatures in Virginia may end up being useful after all.
I said almost 2 months ago,I would never vote for Romney,and I would never vote for Newt.I said maybe Santorum.Newt is an inside the beltway cheater who couch potatoed with Pelosi.Romney is Romneycare and no differant than Obama.Everyone said I was a fool,that Santorum had no chance at all.Well if my single vote counts for anything anymore,I will throw it away for Santorum.No to Newt,No to Romney.
Ditto, I am on my second week of no Rush.
As tempting as it might be to say things like that — I've been getting annoyed with some of the Newt Gingrich supporters accusing Santorum of staying in merely for egotistical reasons or as part of a hidden plan to help Romney win — it's too early to call for any candidate who appeals to a significant part of the Republican Party electorate to pull out.
There are people who are strongly committed to Newt Gingrich and believe Rick Santorum is not the right person to carry the Republican banner into the November elections. I don't happen to agree; I think Newt Gingrich has serious baggage and will cause real problems if nominated. However, I am painfully aware that both Gingrich and Santorum have serious difficulties, I've been unhappy for a very long time that we didn't get better candidates to run this year, and I'm not going to call for Gingrich backers to fold their cards and go home.
Gingrich can't win this fall without social issues voters, most of whom are evangelical Christians and conservative Roman Catholics. Santorum can't win this fall without the voters from the other two wings of the Republican Party — economic conservatives and military/national defense conservatives — and while South Carolina showed that Gingrich can win in the heart of the Bible Belt, Gingrich does significantly better among people who are not self-identified “values voters.”
Let's see what happens over the next few weeks.
Here's my read of the situation, based on conversations with reporters in both Pennsylvania and Georgia as well as politically active pastors and elders in both states who I have known from church connections for many years.
Both Gingrich and Santorum have a long history of appealing to “populist” insurgent groups which were mad at the political establishments in their states. In Pennsylvania, that meant dissatisfied Democrats willing to vote Republican who were often ethnic blue-collar “Reagan Democrats,” and in Pennsylvania that often meant union workers. In Georgia, that meant dissatisfied rural whites as well as upwardly mobile suburban white voters.
Put another way: Santorum is from a northern old-economy industrial state. Gingrich, despite being a northerner, moved to the South just as the Republican Party was beginning to gain ground. Economic progress in Pennsylvania depended for a very long time on keeping the unions happy and preventing them from calling destructive strikes. Economic progress in Georgia depended on attracting companies that were looking to move to lower-cost Southern states without a history of strong unions.
If Gingrich had stayed in the North or if Santorum had moved South, I'm not sure either of them, if they wanted to effectively represent their own local constituents, would have had voting histories radically different from the other candidate.
Of course, both men are now running for president where they need to represent the entire nation, not just a single state or congressional district. It's a valid question whether Santorum can think nationally; Gingrich has probably already shown he can do so.
My read is both men understand the importance of doing what's best for the nation, not merely their own local state, but it's not fair to blame either man for faithfully representing the people who put them into office.
Another factor: I am not a huge fan of unions, but in an environment where “Cap and Trade” and carbon taxes are threatening to destroy the coal industry, I am not necessarily unhappy with a candidate like Santorum who has a very long history of supporting coal miners.
Please remember, not all of us in the media are liberals.
However, I want to pick up on your point that the media will likely now go after Santorum. You're absolutely right.
While there are legitimate conservative questions about Santorum — questions that in some cases I share — the main objections to Santorum from a liberal perspective are his views on abortion, gay marriage, and contraception.
Google “Santorum” and “gay” and see what you find. That's how vicious the hatred is against him on that issue.
An all-out attack by liberal media on Santorum can and will cause damage. However, I don't see that focusing on Santorum’s objections to gay marriage and abortion will hurt him in conservative Republican circles, and those attacks may actually backfire by helping Santorum among likely Republican primary voters/caucusgoers. I frankly don't see why liberal Democrats are howling about Santorum’s views on contraception — he's not trying to outlaw birth control, and all he's saying is women have the right to choose to do with their own bodies what they want — but even here on Free Republic we've seen attacks on Santorum’s views on contraception.
Given the recent Roman Catholic letters read in Mass by priests at the directive of their bishops reminding Mass-going Roman Catholics of Obama’s efforts to force Catholic hospital insurance plans to cover contraception and abortion-inducing forms of birth control, a serious attack on Santorum’s views on contraception may actually backfire by energizing Roman Catholic voters who often vote Democrat.
Bottom line: I don't see a coordinated media attack on Santorum as necessarily being a bad thing.
“However, I don’t see that focusing on Santorums objections to gay marriage and abortion will hurt him in conservative Republican circles. . . “
How do you think it will play with the side that matters in the general. .. the left and the rest of the uninformed American electorate?
Yes, I think the bishop's letter had an effect.
Let's remember that conservative ethnic blue-collar Roman Catholics in northern industrial states were a significant part of the Reagan Democrat vote. Santorum is almost tailor-made to appeal to that constituency, for both economic and religious reasons.
At the same time that Newt Gingrich was getting his photograph with Nancy Pelosi on the couch to call attention to global warming, Santorum was saying that we need to support America's coal miners, at least in part because he's from an old-economy state in which coal has been a major industry. Newt admitted he's wrong, and I respect that, but if we're going to criticize Santorum for cozying up to unionized coal miners, let's not forget that coal miners and other unionized workers sometimes vote Republican, and if they're going to vote Republican, Santorum is a better candidate to get those “Reagan Democrat” votes.
Reagan Democrats are less important today than they were three decades ago, but they're still important in states like Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania — states that the eventual Republican nominee, whoever he is, needs to win to win the presidency.
We'll know a lot more in the next few weeks.
I signed on as a Newt man, username and all, and I’ll live with it but I’m just as satisfied with Santorum. After tonight, Newt needs to seriously consider what he has been advising Rick to do: consolidate.
A clear alternative to Romney is more realistic (and for conservatives probably more optimal) than a brokered convention. It’s time someone puts country first above personal ambition.
President Obama and HHS Secretary Katherine Sebelius hopes you're right.
You probably **ARE** right when it comes to totals of self-identified Roman Catholics. What I hope happens is that a majority of Catholics who regularly attend Mass decide that even if they don't want to listen to celibate priests and bishops telling them what to do about birth control, they don't want President Obama telling their church what to do.
Those are two different issues, especially when it comes to coverage for the morning-after pill.
Thanks..I had not.
Because of the age difference I said weeks ago Newt/Rick. Then we set up the 8+8. Eight years of Newt and President followed by eight years of Rick. That’s sixteen years with a conservative president.
I think even Newt was shocked with WHO came out with the long knives in FL. I have been totally disgusted with them. A candidate expects the other party to trash him/her, and for an old pro like Newt, that’s not so big a deal, but when your ‘friends’ attack with below the belt tactics, it’s hard to fathom.
And, you really have to wonder what their incentive is in some cases. I.e., Pat Buchanan? Attacking Newt and supporting Romney? How does THAT figure? All I can assume is that his sister Bay is now a Mormon and she is supporting Romney, so ole Pat went along. I’m kinda sick of the Buchanans anyway, and it wouldn’t much matter one way or the other who they support. He is a good writer and right on many issues, but what a bitter old man. Ugh.
Yes, the delegates were chosen. However none were bound by the results of the preference poll taken at the caucus.
real caucus organizers are little concerned with the straw vote. The delegate selection is legally bound. You cannot change the delegates. And of course, I doubt many Santorum delegates will be switching to ROMNEY any time soon!
I guess I am old-fashioned about caucuses.
I removed my bookmarks for Drudge!!!
I was going there several times a day.
I did go there once last night to see his headline... but no more.
He doesn’t deserve our hits!
I agree that dog won't hunt, but I'm not sure I agree on the parallels here. This isn't an attack on Newt Gingrich in any way, but rather pointing out that if the dog set on Gingrich won't hunt, the dog set on Santorum will hunt even less.
My understanding of the situation — and correct me if I'm wrong — is that Rick Santorum married a woman who had previously lived with an abortionist. Nobody is claiming personal misconduct on Rick Santorum’s part, and while I'm certainly not defending living with somebody outside of marriage, there's a difference between accusing a candidate of personal wrongdoing and accusing a candidate's wife of personal wrongdoing long before they were married.
I would have serious concerns about Santorum if I believed his wife was pro-choice. Wives can be and often are a clue to what their husbands actually believe outside of public view, or at least to what they're willing to tolerate even if they disagree. I don't know how much of the stuff about the private views of recent Republican first ladies is actually true, but there are reasons most of them kept their views quiet.
In Mrs. Santorum’s case, I think it's crystal clear to everybody, based on the Santorum family's subsequent willingness to have children that many and perhaps most Americans would have aborted and Mrs. Santorum’s willingness to give up her career to care for a special-needs child, that Mrs. Santorum’s repentance is genuine. Lots of “I have sinned” fake repentance claims are out there, but you just don't keep a Trisomony-18 special needs baby and give up your career to do so if you aren't serious about not just talking the talk but walking the walk.
Here are Missouri's rules: http://www.mogop.org/2012stateconvention/caucuses
Unless a county votes to bind its delegates, the delegates can vote for whoever they want once they get to the congressional district convention (which selects some delegates) and the state convention (which selects other delegate).
There's a lot of room for “stuff happens” here.
I support the caucus system. I always have. I believe primaries, especially open primaries, are bad for both parties because they let people who aren't committed to a party have a say in the party's nominee.
But caucuses have their own problems. They can be “gamed” by organized outside elements such as Ron Paul or Lyndon LaRouche. They also can be (and often are) controlled by party insiders who don't share the views of ideologically committed groups like conservative Christians or Tea Partiers who haven't taken the time to get involved in doing the hard work of campaigning for the party.
There's a simple solution to that. Get involved in the party apparatus. With time, party insiders may not agree with you, but if you get Republicans to vote and get independents and Democrats to vote Republican, they'll view you as a hard worker who deserves to be rewarded for your hard work, instead of an outsider causing trouble.
It's not rocket science, but it is hard work, and it doesn't happen overnight — it takes years, just as it takes years to become a leader in the Chamber of Commerce, the Masons, a church group, the PCA, the Kiwanis, or anything else.
302 posted on Tuesday, February 07, 2012 10:01:21 PM by mplsconservative: “There's a big problem with your statement. We vote for delegates DURING the caucus. If you're involved politically and know who the people are at your caucus, it overcomes the ability of a Paul supporter being elected as a delegate. Each potential delegate stands and makes a statement about why they want to be one and who they support for president. I wouldn't want a candidate that has people write in delegates after we've already voted. That's something the democrats would do. It's called cheating.”
I’ll give you an example from my caucus. The preference vote was split relatively evenly between Romney and Santorum. I think Romney ended up with one more vote than Santorum. Gingrich and Paul each got a couple of votes. Tom Tancredo was a write in by one person. We then selected our county assembly delegates. Of the county delegates 4 were for Romney and one for Tancredo - which certainly does not reflect the preference poll taken. Out of these county assembly delegates both the delegate and alternate to the state convention were Romney supporters. This is what I mean by “non-binding” The preference poll really did not reflect the delegate makeup.
I know of another precinct where the preference poll was overwhelmingly for Santorum. I believe that the delegates going on where split down the middle Romney/Santorum.
I’m just trying to explain how the process is in Colorado and that the delegates are not bound by the preference poll. In fact I have been to caucuses where those running do not even declare and are trusted to go and vote.
I think Romney, when he decided to run, hes a smart business guy, and he sort of got his team together and said, What do I need to do to be the conservative candidate? and give me the checklist and see if I can check them off. And I think over the course of this campaign, you know, I saw the migration from the checklist to his head and from his head into his heart and I really believe thats where he is today. - Rick Santorum, 2008
I'd like to hear Santorum, as a conservative candidate in 2012, explaining that.
let me be more crude and blunt so the readers can understand my point.
we consider the straw poll portion to be useless, filthy garbage. The delegates are what a caucus is about and the delegates are GOLD.
The Santorum people at your caucus did not successfully participate in the caucus which is why they won NO delegates.
So it is wrong to say a caucus is non-binding. The straw vote is what is non-binding because it is not part of the CAUCUS. It is not “non-binding”, it is crap. We know that the delegates would not and could not be bound by crap. Same in Iowa. Same every where.
Review: A caucus is about delegates.
The straw poll is not part of the caucus. It is a useless side-show that is crap.
Basically, you are just a weather vane.
You need to get a foundation that will stop your spinning in the wind.
Newt’s weakness is his occasional tendency to go “touchey-feely,” While Santorum’s weakness is that he greatly favors the establishment over the will of the people.
These differences are important, and make Newt a vastly superior presidential candidate.
Why thank you kindly. Great day to be alive.
Exactly. That is what I was trying to say too. I was just pointing out that the portion being reported - the preference poll - is non-binding - that the delegates were not bound by the poll, and thus the reported results don’t tell an accurate story of what will happen at the state convention where the national committed delegates will be selected.
Yes - delegates are gold- that’s where the action is. The folks who came to the caucus who wanted Santorum didn’t want to spend two Saturdays to go to the county and state conventions. Funny that a person who wanted a guy not on the ballot (Tancredo) was willing to spend the time and now her voice will be heard at the county convention. She was up for the state convention but in her speech deferred to other candidates as she was new to the caucus system. But, she could have been a state delegate if she had made a forceful case for herself (rather than for Tancredo IMO, knowing my fellow caucus goers).
which is why some of us think it is weird that of all people, Freepers are the political core believers and they are interested in a dozen or so straw votes at their site and do not report the delegates which are the only valuable thing coming out of the caucus.
I think if I went and read the paulista site they would all be talkin bout the delegates and not the breakdown of 12 romney 11 paul 4 newt 7 santorum which is so silly.
it is troubling that it has come to this.
Exactly. Which is why I’m so confused only weak candidates even bothered this time.
“Basically, you are just a weather vane.”
I don’t mind that aspersion. I’m not so committed to one candidate that I need to trash another good one. I would be completely satisfied with either Newt or Rick as the nominee.
I’m a Newb... lol... and I’m already being attacked for saying Rick would be a viable alternative. Some people have a slavish cultic devotion to their candidate. We’re supposed to be conservatives, not Ron Paul supporters! LOL
An overwhelming majority of Americans oppose gay marriage. A smaller majority (maybe 51%) oppose abortion. These are not losing issues for Republicans in the fall but they shouldn’t be the focus. They won’t be. Obama and his failed policies will be.
Please remember, Ronald Reagan was an actor before he became a politician.
Perfect delivery of perfectly memorized lines that sound good and look good, and doing it for so many years on the big screen and little screen that it becomes second nature for normal life, may be too high of a standard to ask anyone to meet who hasn't been a professional actor for most of their adult life before running for office.
Soooo, how many delegates were chosen? None? hummm.
Not only are out votes worthless but, they are not even secret when done in caucus. Anybody see a problem with this?
Its like watching the Superbowl and then finding out the GOP decided the Patriots won.
That's a valid question.
To a large extent, winning a general election means turning out your own supporters. Evangelicals, unfortunately, have really bad turnout percentages. Conservative Roman Catholics are often from demographic groups which are likely to vote Democrat if they don't have a key religious motivation to vote Republican.
On the other hand, most pro-homosexual and pro-choice people aren't going to vote Republican anyway, so nominating a candidate who has a decades-long history of being vilified by the homosexual and pro-abortion community has the advantage of turning out conservatives to vote. Annoying people who probably wouldn't vote Republican anyway isn't a major problem.
I realize there are economic conservatives who define “conservative” in terms that closely resemble libertarianism. Those people aren't going to like Santorum, and I understand that. For those people who think being conservative is being opposed to “government intruding in your bedroom,” Santorum’s opposition to gay marriage and abortion won't go down well.
My response to Republicans who think that way is to say that I respect their right to vote for Mitt Romney, but even Romney professes to believe the same things Rick Santorum clearly does believe. Also, Newt Gingrich is also pro-life and opposed to gay marriages. So if we're going to have a Republican nominee who claims to be pro-life and anti-gay-mariage no matter who gets nominated, why not nominate someone who excites the base and turns them out in large numbers — including the key demographic of ethnic blue collar Roman Catholics in the upper Midwest who will be key to winning the states we need to win the presidential race?
I'm not saying Newt Gingrich can't win those voters — he may very well be able to do so. What I **AM** saying is that I seriously doubt if Mitt Romney can do so.
Bottom line: Liberal left-wing attacks on Rick Santorum are likely to seriously backfire. If groups like ACT-UP and Code Pink are stupid enough to do protests at Santorum events, most of America will be so grossed out, and conservative Catholics and evangelicals so deeply offended, that the net result is a plus for Santorum.
You can tell a lot about someone by knowing who their enemies are. Santorum’s enemies are the right ones to have.
See Psalm 139:21: “Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?” I don't think that passage is appropriate to cite in very many cases, but with regard to homosexuality and abortion, it is.
I’ve seen non-actors do the same. If it comes from the heart you only need reminders.
Very interesting analysis. Nice to see something more than: “NEWT CHEATED ON HIS WIVES!!” “SANTORUM VOTED FOR EARMARKS!!”
You’ve informed my thinking on both candidates. More so on Santorum I think. I’m still a Newt guy and will remain so...and the more I think about it the more I have to admit to myself it’s just that I think he’s so damned smart.
I’ll make a less intellectual case: a football analogy. Baseball’s really my sport, but for this case football works better.
I view Santorum as the quarterback who can win the game for you if you have a good enough team around him. He won’t throw a lot of interceptions. He’ll make all the right reads. But you can’t put the game on his shoulders because he doesn’t have a big arm or tremendous creativity. Think Troy Aikman. Very good. Even a Hall of Famer. But no one thinks he would have won 3 titles if he had quarterbacked the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
Gingrich on the other hand, is Brett Favre. He’ll take chances, even make the occasional boneheaded play. But he’ll also make plays that make your jaw drop. You have to decide if the great plays make up for the boneheaded plays.
OK, probably a dumb analogy, but that’s kind of how I see these guys. I can live with either. But I think the conservative movement needs a Favre type right now more than an Aikman type.
Thank you for your note.
I am in full agreement that sound bites are not enough, and I respect Gingrich's success in being an intellectual college professor who somehow figured out how to appeal to Georgia rural voters who usually would be disposed to reject a “pointy-headed Yankee carpetbagger.”
I live in the Missouri Ozarks, having moved to the Fort Leonard Wood area after 9/11. Connect the dots. I have reasons to like what Gingrich has done in making conservative views intellectually respectable while appealing to a populist Southern mass audience. That's a really hard trick to pull off both tasks successfully at the same time.
I believe a reasonable conservative this year could vote for either Gingrich or Santorum. Both have problems. Both have benefits. I'm not happy with the entire Republican field this year — if we don't get our act together very soon, we're going to throw away our chance to defeat Barack Obama — and Romney is not the guy to do it.
“To a large extent, winning a general election means turning out your own supporters”
I wonder if this is really true. . . in this election cycle. Somehow I think we need more than just our own supporters to win this one. I like Santorum as much as I don’t like Newt. Better than any candidate running in terms of alignment with my own principles and politics. My worry is that the chances are dim that the dumbed down american electorate will click with him. Most certainly Newt has less than that chance.
Your analysis make perfect sense to me, but I just don’t see it played out in this culture of uneducated voters.
I think we agree more than we disagree.
Winning elections at the federal level or local/state races with well-known high-profile candidates requires two things: Turning out your own supporters and convincing undecideds and opponents to vote for you instead of your opponent.
A key problem is that if candidates do not excite and motivate their base supporters, they can't win even if they might be more “palatable” to moderates. The reality is there are lots of strongly conservative people who are considerably less committed to voting than they are to conservative principles. Within the modern Republican coalition, that's an especially serious problem with evangelical voters. Democrats have the same problem with ethnic minority voters, but by nominating Barack Obama, they turned out huge numbers of voters from a constituency that was virtually certain to vote for Obama.
In 2008, the Democrats changed the makeup of the electorate. In 2010, the electorate changed back to a more typical makeup, except that conservative “Tea Partiers” were more willing than usual to go to the polls because of anger over what Obama was doing.
It remains to be seen what will happen in 2012, and much will depend on who the Republicans nominate. If we nominate Mitt Romney, I believe we've thrown away our chance for a decisive national victory and could easily condemn numerous congressional and state candidates to defeat.
” . . . and convincing undecideds and opponents to vote for you instead of your opponent.”
This is where I get stuck. Right here.
I see your screenname says you've been here since 2005. I guess you missed when the vast majority of freepers did as Santorum did in 2008, and endorsed Romney over McCain in 2008 after Fred Thompson dropped out (I was in a tiny minority of those endorsing Huckabee, along with FR's founder, Jim Robinson)
I'd like to hear the Santorum bashers, who are attacking him for this, reveal who they endorsed in 2008 when it came down to McCain, Romney, and Huckabee.
I believe I smell more hypocrisy.