Pete Spiliakos

1.  I agree with Peter and Bob in the below thread.   I especially like where Bob says “Rick must draw the fat, slow moving Mitt into battle at a site of his choosing, where he can chew up his advancing columns, render his supports moot by clever raids”  That is to say . . . . Continue Reading »

1.  Romney gained on Santorum both in Michigan and nationally after last week’s debate, but PPP shows Santorum coming on strong in the last couple of days.  I suspect that part of Santorum’s surge is that the debate effect is fading and how Romney beat Santorum in the . . . . Continue Reading »

In the last year, the national polls for the Republican presidential nomination have been led by many different people including the freakish and shameful pseudo-candidacy of Donald Trump.  But Republican primary and caucus voters have shown much better judgment than you would think given the . . . . Continue Reading »

Nate Silver explains all the different ways that the Republicans select national convention delegates and the varying degrees to which delegates are bound to support a given candidate. . . . . Continue Reading »

So why did Ron Paul go after Santorum more than Romney yesterday?  Is it an alliance because Romney is a secret paleolibertarian, or is it a secret bargain so that Romney would make Ron or Rand Paul the VP nominee?   Please.  Ron Paul trained most of his fire yesterday on . . . . Continue Reading »

1.  Henry Olsen is one of the few I’ve read who didn’t think Santorum had an outright bad debate.  He is right in one sense.  Even with all the pressure on him, Santorum wasn’t as whiny and hostile as he was in the early debates. That’s something.  But . . . . Continue Reading »

1.  Bad night for Santorum.  You get the sense that he doesn’t have the time to do murder boards with his staff about how he is going to answer questions.  He just wings it.  By contrast, Romney prepares his attacks carefully (hey you supported Arlen Specter in 2004 - like . . . . Continue Reading »

So the vacationing Carl Scott made the following observation that I think deserves more attention than it will get in the comments section: The key here is Peter’s 35 state claim [Peter Lawler passing on a story from the Politico that Santorum would lose 35 states.] Where is the data or the . . . . Continue Reading »

I talk about it on another channel. . . . . Continue Reading »

1.  I think it is a huge deal for Santorum.  My sense is that a large plurality of potential Republican voters would prefer to vote for Santorum, but also don’t want to vote for a bumbler or sure loser.  This group doesn’t want to vote Romney, but they’ll do it if . . . . Continue Reading »