Santorum's Surge & Mitt's Mitigation
This primary season is just a continual roller coaster ride. After Mitt’s big wins in Florida & Nevada (2 key swing states, 46% & 48%) Feb. 4, Santorum pulled out a surprise caucus trifecta on Tuesday, Feb. 7, and then Romney came back (again, as after S. Carolina) in the Maine caucuses Feb. 11 with 39% (Ron Paul 36%, Santorum 18%, Ron Paul 6%). He also seemed to make his case fairly well at CPAC the same week, evidenced in their straw poll with Mitt 38% vs Santorum 31%, Newt 15%, Ron Paul 12%. And Mitt’s expected to do well in the only 2 other primaries before Super Tuesday – Michigan & Arizona Feb. 28. Then 10 states on Super Tuesday, March 6.
I’d ask who’s changed more – the fickle among the GOP or Romney, who was the clear conservative choice at CPAC in 2008? Who’s been the steadiest in the polls? Look at the polls over the last year, and the flavors of the month that have now continued with Newt and Santorum voting surges. Easy come, easy go. If we’ve learned anything in this election, it’s that surges are usually short-lived. Bet on the tortoise, not the hare.
Nevada
After Nevada, Mitt said, “Mr. President, Nevada & America have had enough of your kind of help.....This nation needs a president that understands and knows how to fix the economy – I do and will.....America deserves more than ‘it could be worse.’”
From the Romney Campaign:
Four days after Mitt's big win in Florida, he followed it up with an equally impressive victory Saturday in Nevada. And just like in Florida, there are some really compelling statistics from last night's results that make it very clear that Mitt is the only candidate that can unite our party to defeat Barack Obama this fall:
Nevada's exit polls showed a very broad victory for Governor Romney, just like Florida. Mitt won among conservatives, Tea Party members, women, men, lower educated, higher educated, etc.
Mitt won nearly a majority of "very conservative" voters (46%). He defeated Newt Gingrich (35% - 32%) among strong Tea Party voters and also won 48% of the vote among evangelicals over Newt Gingrich (43% - 28%).
Like Florida, Mitt Romney won handily among voters who said electability was the most important quality in a candidate. He also won handily among those voters who said the economy was the top issue.
Mitt won a majority of LDS voters and also won among Protestant and Catholic voters.
With victories in the Northeast (New Hampshire), Southeast (Florida), and now the West (Nevada), Mitt has proven he is a strong national candidate.
In 2008, Barack Obama won both Florida and Nevada. Winning these states will be crucial this November. This week, Mitt showed he can -- and will -- make these states red again.
The “Perfect Storm” (Colorado, Minnesota & Missouri)
Everyone seemed blindsided by Santorum’s sizeable wins, without the benefit of polling. It was a left hook or sucker punch. We knew Santorum had skipped the last states to jump ahead & focus on others, and I think Mitt went light on these to look further ahead at committed delegate states (these 3 did not bind delegates). Mitt did best in Colorado, w. 35% vs Santorum’s 40%, but worse in Minnesota & Missouri.
This was Santorum's last chance to regain some momentum, and he hit it big. I think in part due to the “issue of the month” -- the gov't. beating up on the Catholic charities to provide their employees contraceptives, and Santorum capitalized on the separation of church & state as a Catholic social issues guy. Sort of like Newt’s capitalizing on the anti-media sentiment in the pre-S. Carolina debates.
The timing again was amazing, and had even a consistent conspiracy skeptic like Michael Medved saying it might not be unreasonable that the Democrat operatives pressed the issue right now to inject it into the GOP primary, to give Santorum an edge to weaken Romney. I’d even add that the blindsiding was uncharacteristic of all the previous wealth of polling we’ve had for the other primaries & caucuses – we’ve known pretty closely what to expect. The media either was intentionally not polling or not reporting it, contributing to the shock effect on the Romney camp and publicity for Santorum’s upsets. And the lib talking heads were all over that in the media, like Stephanopoulos saying “how can Mitt recover,” and another saying if that’s as well as Mitt can do against Santorum, how could he ever expect to beat Obama? But the polls still show it very close head-to-head w. Obama, and should improve once the GOP bloodletting subsides, and they come together w. a united front and story & contrast more clearly w. Obama & his lousy record. The Dems & MSM do enjoy tweaking us, pushing our buttons – time to give them a bit of their own medicine.
Another factor perhaps was a bit of complacency on the part of Romney supporters after some key wins. And then a certain amount of often unspoken anti-Mormon prejudice. I wouldn’t even doubt there may have been an under-the-radar whisper campaign fueled in part by that prejudice to get out more evangelicals (& Tea Party purists & Romney-haters) to the caucuses. Palin, Limbaugh & Lavin have been very openly pushing for Santorum to prevent a premature coronation of Romney. If true, it may not have been accurately representative of the GOP voters in those states – sort of like how Ron Paul gets inflated turnouts at caucuses & debates (judging by their applause).
Then, too, it may just be another in the long series of fickleness in this election, with GOP pollees & voters going from one flavor of the month to another. They are extra nervous about choosing just the right guy, after the election 4 yrs ago (things might have turned out better if they’d gone w. Mitt then). Moving on to the next candidate after closer scrutiny leaves them disenchanted with the last. And Santorum has not yet had much of a day in the sun and scrutiny – his time allocations in the debates proportional to his past low polls. But that should now be about to change. We’ll see how long his little surge carries.
This campaign has seemed like one long roller coaster ride, and with Santorum’s trifecta, it looks like it may go on for a while longer -- some saying to June before it's decided. California, with its June primary, may not be too late to actually play a role this time -- our votes may count for a change! We may have to wait a bit longer for the fat lady to sing.
Hopefully just another bump in the road that Mitt's come back from before, like S. Carolina. Matthew Dowd said Mitt’s still the frontrunner, but damaged, and it’ll now likely go to June.
Mitt was characteristically gracious in defeat, congratulating Santorum. He also kept his eye on the prize, reminiscing about Obama’s big Greek column extravaganza 4 yrs ago in Denver where he defined progress as: 1) the number who have jobs to pay for a mortgage – more have lost homes & jobs under Obama than ever; 2) whether ave. American family sees income go up – it’s fallen 10% under Obama; 3) more business startups – 100,000 fewer last yr. than before he came; 4) an economy that honors the dignity of work – there are more on unemployment for longer periods & more collecting food stamps than ever. Under his own definition, Obama’s failed, but we will succeed. He said the presidency is not the place to learn to lead – and Obama’s learned too little, too late – but to exercise judgment gained over a lifetime. Mitt said he would, and told the story of his father going from rags (lathe & plaster work) to president of a car company.
Santorum’s Follies
As to Santorum, as much as he seems to decry personal attacks (when directed at him), he’s been dishing it out big time against Mitt, comparing him to Obama. And in his victory speech, his personal venom for Mitt was clear, saying this is being heard loud & clear at a certain residence in Massachusetts – appealing to anti-Mitt (& anti-Mormon?) sentiment. I saw him in the midst of a circle of Evangelicals who had their hands on his head as they prayed for his candidacy – no doubt to thwart the devilish Mormon candidate that they so utterly hate, and to save the nation from the horrible fate of a Mormon (& “moderate”) president. I’ve heard a couple of them call in to conservative talk shows like Prager or Medved and say “did you know that Mormons believe.....?”, whereupon the host immediately dismissed them, saying this is a political, not a theological debate. I think they’re learning to keep their prejudices to themselves, but they are keeping their prejudices. And Missouri, where Santorum did best, has a long history of hatred of Mormons.
Santorum said “We’re not going to win this election with a candidate who bashes their opponent with lots of money,” something he’s attacked Mitt about on many occasions. Just picking up where Newt left off. And we will win with another smooth-talking career politician who supposedly doesn’t attack his opponent? More Democrat-style, anti-capitalist whining like Newt about Mitt’s wealth and his own lack of money. Isn’t one of the 10 commandments that we not covet or resent others’ wealth? A good Catholic should know that the bible decries the love of money, not having it, and Mitt has done many charitable things with his personal money, done much volunteer service, etc. One caller to Prager whined about Mitt’s tax-disclosed tithing (and more than tithing) donations, asking if he weren’t Mormon, would he give that? Prager firmly rebuked the guy, saying it was a free will offering – he’s chosen his religion, and give him credit, rather than attacking him. Out of prejudice, some seem anxious to find fault where there is none, and logic fails them. One could ask the same of any religious person who donates to their church.
As said before, the money this election is coming from donations of many (like me) who believe in Mitt and want to support him, so Santorum’s really attacking us and the legitimate process. Furthermore, perhaps Mitt has to spend more just to overcome the anti-Mormon bias and level the playing field to being more about qualifications. Let’s see what Santorum does now with money he’s getting now that he’s getting more visibility – let’s see if he doesn’t expand his attacks on Mitt.
Santorum’s also whined about Mitt’s organization – another case of envy, no doubt, and his own inability in the executive, organizational realm, which also affects fund-raising.
Senator DeMint, a Santorum supporter, said that Santorum changing his position on earmarks recently during the campaign is OK – that there’s no room for parochialism in the race. But if Mitt changed his position on something many years ago, that’s not OK? Clearly there are some other prejudices going on among those who harp on Mitt’s changing & presumed untrustworthiness. Sen. Santorum, good Catholic that he is, ought to remember the scripture about the beam & mote.
Santorum’s also frequently attacked Mitt for not being a “true conservative,” with the prime evidence being Mitt’s governorship. The only problem there is that context has meaning (e.g., the biblical statement of a prophet being “perfect in his generation”). Mitt was a Republican governor in the bluest state in the country (legislature 85% Democrat), left the state with a budget surplus, lower taxes, fought pro-life battles winning the endorsement of the state’s pro-life organization, etc. When he chose his battles, and didn’t accomplish all that a governor in a less liberal state might (like Perry in Texas), who is Santorum to criticize that? And isn’t that a stretch? Does Santorum have any executive (or private or volunteer sector) experience to compare apples to apples with? I think not.
And now that Santorum’s having his day in the sun, we’ll see how he holds up to closer scrutiny himself. We’ll see if he has the pure, clean conservative record he would have us believe. And if there’s any indication he has executive ability, or understands the economics of the private enterprise & job creation, as Mitt. Or can appeal to the independent voters that will decide the general election, rather than only appeal to the self-proclaimed, self-righteous ideologically pure and anti-Mormon bigots. In his last election in his home state, Santorum was soundly beaten.
Obama’s Latest
And while we were distracted by the GOP race, Pres. Obama slipped in his 4th trillion-dollar-plus deficit budget in a row – a joke that even Harry Reid said would never make it to the floor of the Senate. So much for his promise to cut the deficit in half by his 4th year. Clearly time to get this joker out of office – he doesn’t take his job seriously, and provides zero leadership. Unless you consider following close on the heels of Greece leadership.
I’d ask who’s changed more – the fickle among the GOP or Romney, who was the clear conservative choice at CPAC in 2008? Who’s been the steadiest in the polls? Look at the polls over the last year, and the flavors of the month that have now continued with Newt and Santorum voting surges. Easy come, easy go. If we’ve learned anything in this election, it’s that surges are usually short-lived. Bet on the tortoise, not the hare.
Nevada
After Nevada, Mitt said, “Mr. President, Nevada & America have had enough of your kind of help.....This nation needs a president that understands and knows how to fix the economy – I do and will.....America deserves more than ‘it could be worse.’”
From the Romney Campaign:
Four days after Mitt's big win in Florida, he followed it up with an equally impressive victory Saturday in Nevada. And just like in Florida, there are some really compelling statistics from last night's results that make it very clear that Mitt is the only candidate that can unite our party to defeat Barack Obama this fall:
Nevada's exit polls showed a very broad victory for Governor Romney, just like Florida. Mitt won among conservatives, Tea Party members, women, men, lower educated, higher educated, etc.
Mitt won nearly a majority of "very conservative" voters (46%). He defeated Newt Gingrich (35% - 32%) among strong Tea Party voters and also won 48% of the vote among evangelicals over Newt Gingrich (43% - 28%).
Like Florida, Mitt Romney won handily among voters who said electability was the most important quality in a candidate. He also won handily among those voters who said the economy was the top issue.
Mitt won a majority of LDS voters and also won among Protestant and Catholic voters.
With victories in the Northeast (New Hampshire), Southeast (Florida), and now the West (Nevada), Mitt has proven he is a strong national candidate.
In 2008, Barack Obama won both Florida and Nevada. Winning these states will be crucial this November. This week, Mitt showed he can -- and will -- make these states red again.
The “Perfect Storm” (Colorado, Minnesota & Missouri)
Everyone seemed blindsided by Santorum’s sizeable wins, without the benefit of polling. It was a left hook or sucker punch. We knew Santorum had skipped the last states to jump ahead & focus on others, and I think Mitt went light on these to look further ahead at committed delegate states (these 3 did not bind delegates). Mitt did best in Colorado, w. 35% vs Santorum’s 40%, but worse in Minnesota & Missouri.
This was Santorum's last chance to regain some momentum, and he hit it big. I think in part due to the “issue of the month” -- the gov't. beating up on the Catholic charities to provide their employees contraceptives, and Santorum capitalized on the separation of church & state as a Catholic social issues guy. Sort of like Newt’s capitalizing on the anti-media sentiment in the pre-S. Carolina debates.
The timing again was amazing, and had even a consistent conspiracy skeptic like Michael Medved saying it might not be unreasonable that the Democrat operatives pressed the issue right now to inject it into the GOP primary, to give Santorum an edge to weaken Romney. I’d even add that the blindsiding was uncharacteristic of all the previous wealth of polling we’ve had for the other primaries & caucuses – we’ve known pretty closely what to expect. The media either was intentionally not polling or not reporting it, contributing to the shock effect on the Romney camp and publicity for Santorum’s upsets. And the lib talking heads were all over that in the media, like Stephanopoulos saying “how can Mitt recover,” and another saying if that’s as well as Mitt can do against Santorum, how could he ever expect to beat Obama? But the polls still show it very close head-to-head w. Obama, and should improve once the GOP bloodletting subsides, and they come together w. a united front and story & contrast more clearly w. Obama & his lousy record. The Dems & MSM do enjoy tweaking us, pushing our buttons – time to give them a bit of their own medicine.
Another factor perhaps was a bit of complacency on the part of Romney supporters after some key wins. And then a certain amount of often unspoken anti-Mormon prejudice. I wouldn’t even doubt there may have been an under-the-radar whisper campaign fueled in part by that prejudice to get out more evangelicals (& Tea Party purists & Romney-haters) to the caucuses. Palin, Limbaugh & Lavin have been very openly pushing for Santorum to prevent a premature coronation of Romney. If true, it may not have been accurately representative of the GOP voters in those states – sort of like how Ron Paul gets inflated turnouts at caucuses & debates (judging by their applause).
Then, too, it may just be another in the long series of fickleness in this election, with GOP pollees & voters going from one flavor of the month to another. They are extra nervous about choosing just the right guy, after the election 4 yrs ago (things might have turned out better if they’d gone w. Mitt then). Moving on to the next candidate after closer scrutiny leaves them disenchanted with the last. And Santorum has not yet had much of a day in the sun and scrutiny – his time allocations in the debates proportional to his past low polls. But that should now be about to change. We’ll see how long his little surge carries.
This campaign has seemed like one long roller coaster ride, and with Santorum’s trifecta, it looks like it may go on for a while longer -- some saying to June before it's decided. California, with its June primary, may not be too late to actually play a role this time -- our votes may count for a change! We may have to wait a bit longer for the fat lady to sing.
Hopefully just another bump in the road that Mitt's come back from before, like S. Carolina. Matthew Dowd said Mitt’s still the frontrunner, but damaged, and it’ll now likely go to June.
Mitt was characteristically gracious in defeat, congratulating Santorum. He also kept his eye on the prize, reminiscing about Obama’s big Greek column extravaganza 4 yrs ago in Denver where he defined progress as: 1) the number who have jobs to pay for a mortgage – more have lost homes & jobs under Obama than ever; 2) whether ave. American family sees income go up – it’s fallen 10% under Obama; 3) more business startups – 100,000 fewer last yr. than before he came; 4) an economy that honors the dignity of work – there are more on unemployment for longer periods & more collecting food stamps than ever. Under his own definition, Obama’s failed, but we will succeed. He said the presidency is not the place to learn to lead – and Obama’s learned too little, too late – but to exercise judgment gained over a lifetime. Mitt said he would, and told the story of his father going from rags (lathe & plaster work) to president of a car company.
Santorum’s Follies
As to Santorum, as much as he seems to decry personal attacks (when directed at him), he’s been dishing it out big time against Mitt, comparing him to Obama. And in his victory speech, his personal venom for Mitt was clear, saying this is being heard loud & clear at a certain residence in Massachusetts – appealing to anti-Mitt (& anti-Mormon?) sentiment. I saw him in the midst of a circle of Evangelicals who had their hands on his head as they prayed for his candidacy – no doubt to thwart the devilish Mormon candidate that they so utterly hate, and to save the nation from the horrible fate of a Mormon (& “moderate”) president. I’ve heard a couple of them call in to conservative talk shows like Prager or Medved and say “did you know that Mormons believe.....?”, whereupon the host immediately dismissed them, saying this is a political, not a theological debate. I think they’re learning to keep their prejudices to themselves, but they are keeping their prejudices. And Missouri, where Santorum did best, has a long history of hatred of Mormons.
Santorum said “We’re not going to win this election with a candidate who bashes their opponent with lots of money,” something he’s attacked Mitt about on many occasions. Just picking up where Newt left off. And we will win with another smooth-talking career politician who supposedly doesn’t attack his opponent? More Democrat-style, anti-capitalist whining like Newt about Mitt’s wealth and his own lack of money. Isn’t one of the 10 commandments that we not covet or resent others’ wealth? A good Catholic should know that the bible decries the love of money, not having it, and Mitt has done many charitable things with his personal money, done much volunteer service, etc. One caller to Prager whined about Mitt’s tax-disclosed tithing (and more than tithing) donations, asking if he weren’t Mormon, would he give that? Prager firmly rebuked the guy, saying it was a free will offering – he’s chosen his religion, and give him credit, rather than attacking him. Out of prejudice, some seem anxious to find fault where there is none, and logic fails them. One could ask the same of any religious person who donates to their church.
As said before, the money this election is coming from donations of many (like me) who believe in Mitt and want to support him, so Santorum’s really attacking us and the legitimate process. Furthermore, perhaps Mitt has to spend more just to overcome the anti-Mormon bias and level the playing field to being more about qualifications. Let’s see what Santorum does now with money he’s getting now that he’s getting more visibility – let’s see if he doesn’t expand his attacks on Mitt.
Santorum’s also whined about Mitt’s organization – another case of envy, no doubt, and his own inability in the executive, organizational realm, which also affects fund-raising.
Senator DeMint, a Santorum supporter, said that Santorum changing his position on earmarks recently during the campaign is OK – that there’s no room for parochialism in the race. But if Mitt changed his position on something many years ago, that’s not OK? Clearly there are some other prejudices going on among those who harp on Mitt’s changing & presumed untrustworthiness. Sen. Santorum, good Catholic that he is, ought to remember the scripture about the beam & mote.
Santorum’s also frequently attacked Mitt for not being a “true conservative,” with the prime evidence being Mitt’s governorship. The only problem there is that context has meaning (e.g., the biblical statement of a prophet being “perfect in his generation”). Mitt was a Republican governor in the bluest state in the country (legislature 85% Democrat), left the state with a budget surplus, lower taxes, fought pro-life battles winning the endorsement of the state’s pro-life organization, etc. When he chose his battles, and didn’t accomplish all that a governor in a less liberal state might (like Perry in Texas), who is Santorum to criticize that? And isn’t that a stretch? Does Santorum have any executive (or private or volunteer sector) experience to compare apples to apples with? I think not.
And now that Santorum’s having his day in the sun, we’ll see how he holds up to closer scrutiny himself. We’ll see if he has the pure, clean conservative record he would have us believe. And if there’s any indication he has executive ability, or understands the economics of the private enterprise & job creation, as Mitt. Or can appeal to the independent voters that will decide the general election, rather than only appeal to the self-proclaimed, self-righteous ideologically pure and anti-Mormon bigots. In his last election in his home state, Santorum was soundly beaten.
Obama’s Latest
And while we were distracted by the GOP race, Pres. Obama slipped in his 4th trillion-dollar-plus deficit budget in a row – a joke that even Harry Reid said would never make it to the floor of the Senate. So much for his promise to cut the deficit in half by his 4th year. Clearly time to get this joker out of office – he doesn’t take his job seriously, and provides zero leadership. Unless you consider following close on the heels of Greece leadership.
Comments
Post a Comment