Romney Likely To Lose Minnesota & Missouri Tonight
Posted by Ashish on 02.07.2012
Could be a big night for Rick Santorum...
Public Policy has Rick Santorum in the lead in Minnesota, 33% to 24% over Mitt Romney with Newt Gingrich at 22%, while they have Romney ahead comfortably in Colorado, 37% to Santorum's 27%. Missouri is also tonight, and Gingrich isn't on the ballot there, setting up a likely Santorum win, though the state has no delegates.
If Santorum does win Minnesota and Missouri tonight, and come in a strong second in Colorado, it will definitely give him a boost and force the media to give him more attention. That works out pretty well for Romney, since the only thing at this point that can hurt him is Gingrich or Santorum dropping out and letting that conservative vote unite around one candidate. If both remain somewhat viable, they will continue to split the vote and create easier paths of victory for Romney.
That being said, expect a fresh round of questions about Romney's electability tonight if he loses two states. At this point, the media has already more or less declared him the nominee, and so each time he fails to deliver and win states, he'll face scrutiny.
Posted By: sorry mitt romney (Guest) on February 07, 2012 at 01:31 PM
Not only does Missouri fail to award any delegates for their contest, but the Minnesota delegates are non-binding. Neither state is an important win in the Republican primary at this point. Missouri will have its binding caucus later.
Posted By: Guest#5278 (Guest) on February 07, 2012 at 02:16 PM
It really isn't a big deal for Romney to lose a few. Newt is off the ballot on a number of states, and Santorum will never beat Obama in the general election.
I would think that Obama would have a tough time with Romney, as would he go after him for saying conserative things, or focusing on some of the liberal things that Romney does? Both?
Sort of like how Obama can be both a Muslim AND belong to a Christian UCC church that spreads racist dogma! That takes some talent!
Posted By: Krunchy (Registered) on February 07, 2012 at 03:23 PM
Ashish doesn't understand what caucusus are. They're straw polls. Paul has been quietly amassing the delegates because they're the only ones with organization besides Romney.
Posted By: Michael (Guest) on February 07, 2012 at 04:19 PM
Ron is now second place nationally and is the favorite to win these states
Posted By: Guest#7856 (Guest) on February 07, 2012 at 04:29 PM
The only delegates Paul has amassed so far were for 2nd place in NH and 3rd in Nevada. He got nothing for Iowa, Florida or SC.
Posted By: Guest#2156 (Guest) on February 07, 2012 at 07:37 PM
It really isn't a big deal for Romney to lose a few. Newt is off the ballot on a number of states, and Santorum will never beat Obama in the general election.
I would think that Obama would have a tough time with Romney, as would he go after him for saying conserative things, or focusing on some of the liberal things that Romney does? Both?
Sort of like how Obama can be both a Muslim AND belong to a Christian UCC church that spreads racist dogma! That takes some talent!
Posted By: Krunchy (Registered) on February 07, 2012 at 03:23 PM
You REALLY have no idea what you are talking about do you?
For the record, there are enough trolls in the political site, we REALLY don't need another
Posted By: ugg (Guest) on February 07, 2012 at 08:07 PM
These are non binding, so why it means nothing Quit with the MSNBC talking points idiot.
Posted By: Guest#1763 (Guest) on February 07, 2012 at 08:37 PM
You REALLY have no idea what you are talking about do you?
For the record, there are enough trolls in the political site, we REALLY don't need another
Posted By: ugg (Guest) on February 07, 2012 at 08:07 PM
Me a troll? I'm a registered user here .. was a contributing member of the Political version of Fact or Fiction many years ago (during the run up to the 2008 election) and been reading this site since Hyatte was around.
How about chewing on this. Missouri was BARELY covered by McCain. I would expect that Romney would do better, after people there having four years of Obama. Minnesota will vote for Obama anyway, since they haven't voted for a GOP candidate since Nixon I believe, so it doesn't matter HOW WELL Santorum, Newt, or Paul do there.
The election is not going to be determined by the conservative voters or the tea party .. those people are SO AGAINST Obama, they will vote (in their heart of hearts) for whoever the GOP nominates, as voting 3rd party will be helping to elect Obama in their minds.
The election is going to be decided by the fuzzy middle, who overwhelmingly went for Obama in 2008, and are disheartened by the lack of "change" that Obama promised.
Romney could be a godsend to the GOP by putting into play states that went for Obama in 2008, like Ohio, New Hampshire, Iowa, and possibly Michigan. With a redistricting plan in place in Pennsylvania, Mitt could end up with a majority of the electoral college there as well, splitting all the electoral votes based on congressional districts.
Honestly, I equate this election to 2004 for the Democrats. They had a few sacrificial lambs running, figuring that with 9/11, they'd never get into the white house, yet it was much closer than people thought. If they actually HAD a viable candidate, they might have upset Bush. I think the same thing will happen here in 2012, though there is still a lot of time left.
Posted By: Krunchy (Registered) on February 07, 2012 at 10:52 PM
These are non binding, so why it means nothing Quit with the MSNBC talking points idiot.
Posted By: Guest#1763 (Guest) on February 07, 2012 at 08:37 PM
Ooo! Him card read good!
Posted By: Homer J. Simpson (Guest) on February 07, 2012 at 11:42 PM
Alright! Go Rick Santorum! The guy whose argument against gay marriage is that you can call a piece of paper marriage, but it isn't marriage, it is just a piece of paper!
And who needs contraception? Not you! America is a land of God given freedom, but God didnt give you the freedom to have sex without getting children out of the deal!
Go conservative America! White-trash red-neck bible-thumping racist-ass xenophobic ham-n-eggars!
Posted By: Guest#6695 (Guest) on February 07, 2012 at 11:51 PM
It really isn't a big deal for Romney to lose a few. Newt is off the ballot on a number of states, and Santorum will never beat Obama in the general election.
I would think that Obama would have a tough time with Romney, as would he go after him for saying conserative things, or focusing on some of the liberal things that Romney does? Both?
Sort of like how Obama can be both a Muslim AND belong to a Christian UCC church that spreads racist dogma! That takes some talent!
Posted By: Krunchy (Registered) on February 07, 2012 at 03:23 PM
You REALLY have no idea what you are talking about do you?
For the record, there are enough trolls in the political site, we REALLY don't need another
Posted By: ugg (Guest) on February 07, 2012 at 08:07 PM
Classic liberal attack...different opinions = trolling. You're simply the best! Better than all the rest! lulz.
Posted By: Guest#8097 (Guest) on February 08, 2012 at 12:34 AM
Posted By: Krunchy (Registered) on February 07, 2012 at 10:52 PM
Sorry mr. registered user been around since the dawn of time, but when you say some crap like
"Sort of like how Obama can be both a Muslim AND belong to a Christian UCC church that spreads racist dogma! That takes some talent!"
That's troll talk plain and simple.
Also the idea that Romney is a "godsend" to the GOP either shows how delusional or crazy you are.
The man ran as the anti mainstream candidate in 2008 and got ALL of the extreme conservative and most of the evangelical vote, the same people who hate the guy and have not voted for him now.
The turnout in most of this has been down because Romney does NOT excite the base of his own party, but you are going to argue he is a better candidate? IF the man can't even get people who hate Obama with a passion to vote for him, how in the world will he get people who are on the fence to vote for him?
For the record Kerry was a terrible candidate but he also got thrown through the mud by the swiftboat people and that hurt him more than anything. If you watched the debates in 04 Kerry won every one of them, then the swiftboat thing took a life of it's own and it was downhill after that.
Posted By: ugg (Guest) on February 08, 2012 at 07:36 AM
"The man ran as the anti mainstream candidate in 2008 and got ALL of the extreme conservative and most of the evangelical vote, the same people who hate the guy and have not voted for him now."
On what planet did Mitt get the support of the evangelical voters? He had to make entire speeches about his religion (that others compared to Kennedy and his Catholicism), and they were still fearful of his religious beliefs. The conservative and evangelical voters were backing Mike Huckabee over all the other candidates in 2008.
"The turnout in most of this has been down because Romney does NOT excite the base of his own party, but you are going to argue he is a better candidate? IF the man can't even get people who hate Obama with a passion to vote for him, how in the world will he get people who are on the fence to vote for him?"
The whole point of the "base of the party" is that they are going to vote for the GOP nominee, regardless of who it is! Once its decided, the overriding factor is "We want Obama out!" The end game is to be elected President of the United States, not President of the Republican Party. The GOP will do that by expanding their appeal, not narrowly focusing on most of the voters they already have.
Posted By: Krunchy (Registered) on February 08, 2012 at 09:12 AM
Posted By: Krunchy (Registered) on February 08, 2012 at 09:12 AM
Romney DID get evangelical voters in some states (IE Iowa) during the 2008 cycle.
HE did get nearly ALL of the extreme conservatives by running as "the anti McCain" during that election.
As far as your point about the "base of the party" voting for the republican nominee regardless, I think you are dead wrong. You think Romney is going to excite those who see him as nothing but an empty suit version of Obama?
The same people who are angry about the Healthcare system are going to vote for the guy it's modeled on? The same people angry at Wall St. are going to vote for a guy who made his fortune on it, not actually producing any products?
You VASTLY overestimate things my friend.
Posted By: ugg (Guest) on February 08, 2012 at 10:01 AM
"Sort of like how Obama can be both a Muslim AND belong to a Christian UCC church that spreads racist dogma! That takes some talent!"
That's troll talk plain and simple.
Posted By: ugg (Guest) on February 08, 2012 at 07:36 AM
Umm... I took it as Krunchy pointing out that conservatives have both labeled Obama as a Muslim and pointed out that he attends a wicked bad-ass Christian Church? Sort of a contradiction, you know? I think that was what he was pointing out.
Posted By: Guest#8526 (Guest) on February 08, 2012 at 01:25 PM
Ugg, I am glad we are "friends" now as I always like to have real back and forth, as opposed to name calling.
I do think though that you overestimated the evangelical support of Romney, especially in 2008. Here is a story written for the National Journal from last year:
Here's the bit I want to highlight, but it is a good article, and holds even more sway with Santorum doing well last night.
"Among the top-tier candidates, Romney may face the steepest challenge with those voters. The former Massachusetts governor struggled enormously among evangelicals during his 2008 race, especially in the South. Romney captured 20 percent or less of the evangelical vote in five Southern contests before he quit the race on February 7; he won just 11 percent of their votes in the pivotal South Carolina primary. Outside of the South, Romney consistently ran somewhat more strongly among evangelicals, but in only six states (including his home territories of Michigan and Massachusetts) did he carry as much as 30 percent of their support. He fell far short of that in the Iowa caucus."
The base does NOT WANT OBAMA to win. I cannot stress this enough. For the last year, all I've heard is "ANYONE BUT OBAMA" so I cannot imagine that any true Republican is going to do anything that would jeopardize removing him from office. Hence, they might not be happy about it, but they will still support him. If he wins, they'll have the White House back, if he loses, then the conservative base could move MORE to the right.
Both parties tend to run in the primaries towards the base, then moves back toward the middle for the general election .. mostly because THAT is where the election is won.
So each guy gets 40 percent of the vote from their base, and the 20 percent in the middle determine what happens. I don't see any evangelical or someone like Newt winning running into the middle well enough to beat Obama, hence why I think that Mitt is the best chance for the GOP to win the election.
Posted By: Krunchy (Registered) on February 08, 2012 at 03:37 PM
STAY CURRENT