1. It really is true that the result in Louisiana makes very little practical difference. Most of the state’s delegates aren’t even picked through the primary. And so Santorum picked up maybe two or three on Romney, remaining, of course, hundreds behind.
2. BUT: In this state at least, the collapse of Newt helped Rick. Santorum significantly outperformed the polls’ predictions, because the late-deciders broke strongly for him.
3. The Catholics, for once, were strongly for Santorum too.
4. I know that LA is one strange bleepin’ state. But any Walker Percy fan knows I’m not making a negative judgment here.
5. Romney still carried easily the very rich guys and those who care most about getting a candidate who can whip the president.
March 25th, 2012 | 10:46 am
Peter,
Regarding #5, its a very open question how well a rich guy that gets the support of the rich (nothing wrong with that), has a hard time when it comes to personality, and has Robomneycare on his resume, will do in the fall when the President, who does not have a difficult time with personality or standing in front of the camera, and has the support of the media and large treasure chest and machine to turn on Romney. Hard to imagine Romney winning, though that has been the signature theme of his campaign. I suspect that because Santorum would not play well at their country clubs, and says things that one doesn’t say in stuffy society, they cannot believe that in November he might be a better candidate. Romney will not win the media advertisement battle this fall, will not be able to stand toe to toe with the President in debate (not because he couldn’t but the dominant cultural discourse flows against him) and cannot differentiate himself on the issue, healthcare, that could be tied in to both the economic discussion and to social issues. Lastly, we should remember that its a much bigger sacrifice for Santorum supporters to be politically active than for Romney supporters (in general). If they are not enthusiastic about Romney they may not turn out.
March 25th, 2012 | 3:57 pm
Peter,
In regards to comment #5, “a candidate that can whip the president”.
Your habits and paterns of speech are dangerous. In this context humorous in what they suggest about Romney supporters.
But what sort of gaffe would it be if Santorum in soaking up the culture let slip such a statement? (I would and have argued that he has.)
Mitt Romney has constantly gamed the system. He has worked fairly hard at getting delegates, at making certain advantageous states winner take all (Santorum intends to challenge this).
While Santorum is somewhat disorganized it is no mistake that Santorum can almost double Romney and still not end up with the bulk of delegates.
Romney has advanced by being more politically correct and by manipulating legal advantages. (which is basically the same thing) He continuously employs reality checking tactical mechanisms. Romney’s delegate lead is born of nothing but a sophisticated bag of managerial market momentum tricks.
I am rather convinced that the virtue and productivity of a Bain Capital rests on no other grounds.
It is a “free market”(lol), so Romney is entitled to his wealth and to his team of lawyers and tax accountants that lets him pay 13.9%, while screaming bloody murder about a headline 35%.
Romney is going to do just fine. But I am not convinced his wealth or his delegates are legitimate or the result of a process that is productive.
He earned his money and his delegates legally. Go ahead and make the case again for a morality that is more than just legalism.
March 25th, 2012 | 4:56 pm
Whip the president is just speaking southern. A lot of voters above all want him out.
March 25th, 2012 | 7:49 pm
Peter,
It goes against all political wisdom that a candidate that people are supporting in large part because he is the safe candidate they believe can win in November, will actually win in November. Money, the culture, and the media will no longer be on his side and he will run against a machine more formidable than his.
Substantively we still don’t know what he would replace Obamacare with. If he repeals it, and replaces it with a version of Obamacare-lite, we will be left with a system that may still have the mechanisms in place to be potentially used by presidents of either party to coerce through the health care system by way of executive of order.
The economy is important, but healthcare has the longest reaching consequences of any issue on the table. The Republican candidate should be able to distinguish himself/herself from President clearly on this, and in a credible manner.
If Romney spells out his healthcare plan to appeal to conservative voters he won’t be able to run with any credibility in the fall.
If he doesn’t spell out his plan to conservatives, given what’s at stake and his previous record, how can they trust him?
Its a tough place for Romney to be in. If he wins the nomination and healthcare comes to the fore we will watch him struggle through the fall.
March 25th, 2012 | 8:57 pm
Because of Romneycare in Mass. you’ll find that Mitt is absolutely the worst candidate to go against Barry.
Barry will eat his lunch and Mitt will sputter and kowtow and apologize and humiliate. And, that will be the legacy of the GOP.
March 25th, 2012 | 10:55 pm
You heard it from Robert. Nice going Republican “establishment”.
March 26th, 2012 | 2:07 pm
I guess Santorum must be engaging in the same kind of fantasy as the commenters here, and thus can rationalize to himself that there is still a point to fighting for more delegates, when there is no rational way he can match Romney, let alone pass him, let alone actually win a majority of delegates. Apparently people who vote for Santorum are “true Republicans” but those who vote for Romney are “mindless Romneybots”. The problem with that argument is that it denigrates the entire democratic enterprise. Alongside the fact that Santorum has criticized Romney for being a successful capitalist, it is hard for me to see how Santorum is a “true conservative” given his disregard for democracy and the free market.
What is Santorum’s vision for how he wins the Republican nomination? He is apparently planning to cause the convention’s cruise ship to run aground on the rocks of an incomplete majority, then wager that the majority of delegates will be so thankful to Santorum for sinking the ship that they will give him one of the lifeboats and send him off to battle Obama’s battleship. He is as delusional as the Italian cruise captian.
Perhaps there might be a shadow of a possibility that a convention could see a shift in delegates that moved someone who was a close second into a winning majority, but Santorum is not even close. He has no moral stance to claim that the will of the voters who chose Romney two to one over Santorum can be casually disregarded. It would be suicide for the Republican Party to tell voters that it doesn’t need to pay attention to their votes.
Make no mistake: Santorum is not just opposing Romney, he is opposing the growing number of Republican voters who have chosen Romney over him, offering to represent them in the nomination and in the election while blowing off their choice of the other guy.
Is this how he plans to handle Iran, Russia, and China? The poor economy and lack of jobs? By creating chaos and hoping he can pull off a miracle?
March 26th, 2012 | 3:13 pm
I agree that Santorum has virtually no chance. But he can’t really drop out until decisively defeated. Believe it or not, he owes that to his supporters. I really don’t think his campaign hurts Romney much. A big Romney victory in, say, Wisconsin would actually be impressive in a way that would help him.
March 26th, 2012 | 5:41 pm
Raymond,
Maybe you could explain what Romney intends to replace Obamacare with, and how he can credibly run against Obama on this issue? It surely is not fantasy that, whatever the perception today, this is the most important issue of this election. And if Romney wins the nomination, wins the election and repeals Obamacare, it remains to be seen what his next step is. His previous record does not inspire confidence. And while its not Santorum’s position, one wonders whether those who have thought deeply about, and thus feel strongly about this issue, might not stay at home rather than vote for Romney. Because a version of Obmacare light, or template-for-Obamacare, leaves us vulnerable to coercion, bankruptcy and lack of health care choice. And if passed by a Republican, then after Obamacare having already been passed and repealed, it will be very difficult to back away from it.
March 26th, 2012 | 9:37 pm
John, you need to remember that repealing Obamacare will have to be done by Congress. If a Republican isn’t elected to the presidency, there would need to be a 2/3 vote to overcome a presidential veto.
If that happens, and Republicans have enough votes in Congress to repeal Obamacare, then the form of the new will become a significant question. Presidential leadership will be important on the matter, but if we can’t get a Republican into the presidency, it won’t matter at all. Rick Santorum just doesn’t stand a chance at beating Obama.
March 26th, 2012 | 11:54 pm
Romney will, of course, be the nominee. Santorum began showing his hand around the table today by openly discussing the no. 2 spot on the ticket. That’s his purpose for being in this race from the start of his campaign until a no.2 is picked.
And Romney will need to consider him. He’s been vetted. There will be no need to spend much money making him familiar to the public, though much will be spent.
Santorum appeals to conservatives better than any other. They’ll accept him as a second, and more willingly get behind Romney.
Rubio’s name has been thrown out, but he’s a rookie, and rookie’s are risky. Many think he would sway latinos, though that is not certain. He is of Cuban descent and that doesn’t necessarily endear him to any other latino group. They do like the President. A 3/5/12 Fox News Latino poll shows the President ahead with latinos by 6 to 1 over all-comer’s, with a 73% approval rating.
As for the Affordable Care Act, it seems that no one wants to admit just how difficult it would be to repeal or amend it without huge gains by the republicans in the Senate, and a continued control of the House. Romney wouldn’t be able to repeal the Act as president. That simply isn’t the way legislation works.
And might someone, anyone, explain just how the Act (or amended version) would leave “us vulnerable to coersion, bankruptcy or health care choice” (perhaps in a new post.)
Are health insurance companies not guilty of coersion? We get what they are willing to offer us, not for what we pay. What choice is there in that? Often times, coverage is denied even when clearly shown as covered in the policy paid for by the consumer. And isn’t the current system, as managed by the private sector most assuredly bankrupting the country? It accounts for a staggering 18% of GDP and is climbing. We have, by far, the highest costs associated with health care.
March 27th, 2012 | 9:33 pm
“it is hard for me to see how Santorum is a “true conservative” given his disregard for democracy and the free market”
Of course it would be hard for someone who thinks there is anything conservative about democracy, and anything automatically conservative about the free market.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact