North Charleston, S.C. — Tim Pawlenty thinks that the other candidates crossed a line in tonight’s debate when they questioned Mitt Romney’s pro-life views.
“He’s clearly committed to the pro-life cause,” Pawlenty said, noting that both Massachusetts and pro-life groups viewed Romney as a pro-life candidate.
He was also dismissive of the idea that South Carolina, which every Republican nominee in recent cycles has won, was a must-win state for Romney. “All these so-called rules where things must happen or must not happen based on what happened last time or ten years ago . . . history can be a guide, but it’s not a guarantee,” Pawlenty said.
Translation: Romney's internal polling shows at least a decent chance he won't win SC.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou beat me to it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHillarious. A week ago, Mitt was making "history" because he had "won" the first two primaries, and there was talk that this whole things would be over after Florida's primary.
Those darn voters, always screwing things up.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn a sense Pawlenty is right - history is a guide not an iron law. Just because the winner in South Carolina has gone on to the nomination in every prior election doesn't mean it must be so.
That said, I think he is mostly wrong about it being "must-win" - true, Romney will not be out of it if he loses. But given the circumstances, I think he has to win, and even then may "lose." He has claimed a lot of momentum for himself, claimed a kind of inevitablity, and he came out of New Hampshire with a fairly sizeable lead in the SC polling. Now he finds that slipping away. If he loses he loses that momentum and his inevitability claim is seriously damaged. Even if he wins, it will likely be by no more than a few points and likely with a lower percentage than he was pulling in polls a week ago. Even that takes the luster off his arguments.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePawlenty is correct. If history was a guarantee, our party would be without a candidate come November. Why? Because no Republican has ever won the nomination without finishing at least second in New Hampshire - Gingrich finished fifth, Santorum fourth - history eliminates them, leaving Romney and Paul standing; except, history dictates that no candidate has won the nomination without South Carolina, it looks like history has just eliminated Romney, and Paul - hence, history has eliminated every single remaining candidate. Romney does not need to have South Carolina - a state due to its evangelical presents is unfriendly for Romney ... look at the polls ... in South Carolina, Gingrich's lead is primarily coming from evangelicals; it is the widest margin between him and Romney. In the states coming, the groups Romney does best with become the majority, not the minority. Plus, he has organizational advantages which will coming into play in February; finally, does anyone expect Gingrich can last very long before imploding due to his ego?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse