Here we go again. With his low-turnout hat trick last night, Rick Santorum wrested the non-Mitt mantle from Newt Gingrich and blew out Romney pretty convincingly in the heartland. Romney got 35 percent of the vote in Colorado, 25 percent in Missouri, and 17 percent in Minnesota, where he finished third behind Ron Paul.
In other words, Mitt bumped his head on the old Romney ceiling again. And with Gingrich going down for what is probably the last time (to the moon, Newt!?) Santorum — as the last plausible alternative candidate still standing — is now in a position to put Romney’s electability argument to the acid test.
Sure, the Romney camp can dismiss the results on various grounds (we didn’t really compete, the dog ate our super PAC), but it’s tough to put a happy face on these numbers. Whereas it’s pretty easy to see them for what some of us around here have been saying for a while now . . . but let one of the crack Republican “strategists” say it for us:
“Team Romney might need to tweak its strategy. So far they’ve been successful in going negative on their opponents and touting his business experience,” Republican strategist Ford O’Connell said. “But obviously Republican primary voters are hungry for something more.”
Tactically, Romney got Gingrich to blow himself up by hitting him where he’s weakest — right in the ego — but strategically he still hasn’t made the sale. Gingrich never fully realized that (as Rush repeatedly pointed out) he was just the vessel for the sizable Anybody But Romney sentiment. Once Newt trotted out his best Bob Dole impression (“stop lying about my record”), the SS SquarePants started going down for the third time and voters began to look elsewhere.
The low turnout is, I think, significant. If there really had been Mittmentum after Florida, why didn’t his voters show up, if only to send a message to Obama and the Democrats that they’re comin’ to getcha in November? Gingrich caught that lightning in a bottle in South Carolina, then lost it in a fit of petulance that played right into his crybaby persona. Santorum lacks Newt’s improvisational brilliance but also his emotional instability.
If the stop-Romney wing of the GOP electorate has a chance, the choice is rapidly narrowing to Santorum. It’s always the last place you look, isn’t it?
The conservative or the liberal, folks. Should be an easy choice for conservatives.
We'll be able to separate the conservatives from the RINOs soon enough.
And this will be as telling as it was when the choice was Reagan or Ford.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe difference, I'd say, isn't quite as stark as that (Santorum has repeatedly sinned against small government) -- but stark enough that if Santorum is the nominee and when he is defeated by Obama, as surely he will be, we can finally say that conservatism of the Santorum variety was tried and was beaten at the polls.
(Of course, there will be excuses for that loss: "if only those 'squishy moderates' had come to their senses and voted for Santorum" . . . "if only Romney hadn't gone so negative on Santorum in the primary" . . . "if only Obama hadn't turned Santorum's positions on social issues into the focus of the campaign" . . . "if only Santorum hadn't made so many easily caricatured statements" . . . "if only the media hadn't twisted Santorum's record" . . . if only, if only, always if only.)
I say let the "strongly conservative" minions have their day -- and let them have their defeat.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I say let the "strongly conservative" minions have their day -- and let them have their defeat."
Scalia will be 80, Thomas 68 and Kennedy 80 by the end of Obama's second term. A twenty year liberal majority on the supreme court sounds like pretty tough medicine just for the sake of proving a point.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow many liberal judges did Romney sit on the MA bench?
It doesn't matter whether it's a Republican or a Democrat picking liberal judges---you still get liberal judges.
Let's not forget one of Romney's good buddies is John Sununu, who lied to Bush the Elder about Souter being a conservative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney would get the same treatment that Bush did with Miers, and he'll have the Senate. I doubt it would even come to that, though.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseReally? Because getting your hindquarters kicked in at the ballot box in presidential election after presidential election surely hasn't shut you RINOs up any.
McCain.
Dole.
Bush the Elder.
Ford.
Every time a RINO runs as a "moderate", the voters send him packing. When moderates run as conservatives---as Bush the Younger did twice and as Nixon did twice before him---they win.
But you drones are immune to facts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGWB ran as compassionate conservative. He was a moderate running as a moderate, not a moderate running as a conservative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAre you saying we could've been running Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan and winning all these past elections?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think you're overly harsh on Santorum's prospects. He has after all, won in PA, which is not a red state. So he has gotten moderates and independents on board in the past. That said, I still think he is less electable than Romney, who has a much more even temperament. Also, I like Romney better on immigration and I like Romney's experience as a businessman and a governor over Santorum's purely legislative experience.
I dislike their attacks on each other's conservatism. Both have taken anti-conservative stances at one point or another during their lives, so that is a wash in my book.
Honestly, after seeing such things as the HHS mandate, I don't think we can afford another four years of Obama. He might get to finish tearing up the Constitution in that time frame.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Walsh doesn't like Mr. Romney, and that's both well known and fine. Still, Mr. Santorum seems to me like Tin Cup on the 18th hole in the last round. A small but unwavering group of supporters will egg him (and the Party) on, ultimately, and unfortunately, to a disastrous score in a general election. (Still, we'll have shown them, that's for sure.) At this point, some other candidate coming out of a brokered convention would appear to be the best shot at beating the President, which, as he might say, is Job 1.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMichael, interesting that two big egos (Clinton and Gingrich) have gotten done what none of the reasonable egos have been able to do for almost 50 years: balance the federal budget.
If the other guy's ego rather than results is the issue for you, maybe the other guy isn't the only one with an ego problem.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think Tuesdays cauci can be pinned to two things:
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse1) A lot of Mitt voters are less politically active/more moderate, and they believed the media that the race was almost wrapped up. So low turnout.
2) A lot of us who will ultimately accept Mitt if he wins don't mind sending him another message with a Santorum vote, reminding him that without conservative backing he's toast. So the more politically active conservative types were more likely to show up at the polls. I'd wager the numbers bear me out on this.
Santorum is perhaps the Goldilocks candidate:
Newt's too hot, Romney's too cool, Santorum , well ... he's looking closer to 'just right' than the other two guys.
Ah, politics: rugby in suits.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf by "Goldilocks candidate" you mean the candidate with his nose in everybody's bedroom, then I agree.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo doubt, last night's results are a bad omen for Romney.
But, Mr. Walsh, you just continue to spout ridiculous opinions that have no factual support.
Where do you get: "Mitt bumped his head on the old Romney ceiling again"?
Did you see the Florida results?
Not only did Romney break the 25%-30% ceiling that people like you have described (with reckless disregard for the facts), but he also got more votes than the COMBINED total of Gingrich and Santorum.
Yet, you indulged the urge to yell: "the old Romney ceiling again".
As the saying goes, you're entitled to your own opinion.
But not your own facts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJoliet, Thanks for being lazy and not posting a link. That's to be expect from a Romneyite. Romney got 46% of the vote. So while you love to tout "facts" you are awfully selective about them. Wikipedia ain't great but for anyone who hasn't reached a predetermined conclusion, scroll down to the chart: External Link
Also of note, Nordlinger here at NRO loved picking on Gingrich's observations about Mormons and Nevada. Gee, the electorate changes and suddenly the results change Santorum's way, don't they? But go ahead, feel morally superior. One Mittbot here quoted a Pew survey that Nevada is "only" 11% Mormon. But how much of the REPUBLICAN PRIMARY electorate was Mormon? Double? Also of note: Nevada was a caucus format which favors committed political interest groups like Mormons. And how big was Mitt's margin of victory? He got 50 percent compared to 21, 19 and 10 for Gingrich, Paul and Santorum. Drop the Mormons from Mitt and readjust and what do you get? Validation of Gingrich's comment.
External Link
I wish y'all were living under RomneyCare in Mass. Then you might LISTEN TO MR. WALSH AND OTHERS LIKE TEFLON instead of thinking that a cruise-ship tan and nice hair qualify you for the White House.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh my, you really should go back on your meds.
Let me do some math for you, and give you some facts.
So here's the first point I'd made to Mr. Walsh, that you seem to think the facts contradict.
I said, it was simply not factually true that Romney didn't break the Romney ceiling.
The link you provided shows that Romney got 46.4% of the vote in FL. The "romney ceiling" has been characterized variously as 25% or 30%.
Evanston2, I hate to break it to you, but 46.4% > 30%.
Thus the FL results, to which you linked, show that the "Romney ceiling" was broken. By Romney.
Irony seems to elude you. You angrily link to the results illustrating my point screaming that the results contradict me.
Now let's do some math together, shall we?
My second point was that in FL Romney actually got more votes than Santorum and Gingrich combined.Again you angirly
Again, let's look at the results to which you link.
Romney got 776,059 votes.
Newt Gingrich 534,040.
Rick Santorum 223,208.
Let's add up Newt + Santorum. That's 534,040 + 223,208.
Evanston2, follow along with me now.
So Ginrich + Santorum add up to 757,248.
With me?
Romney got 776,059.
OK, here's the tricky part, Evanston2.
776,059 > 757,248,
Thus, my statement that Romney got more votes than Gingrich and Santorum combined in FL.
He did.
And the results to which you angrily and self-righteously linked, demonstrate that.
God, Evanston2, you're just illustrating my point.
Folks, are you going to have your presidential candidate selected by someone who not only cannot add, but publicly makes a fool of himself by demonstrating loudly and angrily that he cannot add?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"If the stop-Romney wing of the GOP electorate has a chance"
You understand that the "stop-Romney" wing's efforts will re-elect Obama, right?
Right?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, we are not hypnotized enough to mindlessly accept that ridiculous premise as a fact yet. Sorry. That's probably why you don't hear us chanting it along with you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJoliet. WRONG. Your champion, Mr. Mitt, has won 1 election in his life. A Romney nomination will give us 4 more years of O. Still, I hope it happens so I can read bitter comments here at NRO from wise ones like you about how bad people like me should've done more to help your lame author of RomneyCare. What a whiny bunch of losers you truly are. Santorum cleans your clock, Gingrich (a dead duck if I've ever seen one) manages to take Romney down hard, and you INSIST THAT MITT IS A MASTER POLITICIAN WITH WINNING WAYS. Why don't you at least pause to wonder why people want to "stop-Romney?" Perhaps, just perhaps, you will even recognize that it is not a "wing of the GOP electorate" but actually the majority. Mitt only cracked 50% in Nevada, everywhere else Conservatives have split their vote but are unified in the strong conviction that "Mitt ain't It." In sum, you are WRONG to think that a small group is frustrating the nomination of your guy, and that if he wins the nomination that he will do better than McCain did.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse