www.411mania.com
|
SPOTLIGHTS  SPOTLIGHTS
MOVIES/TV
// Check Out New Images From The Amazing Spider-Man
MUSIC
// Kanye West and Jay-Z's Watch the Throne 2 Confirmed
WRESTLING
// Click Here To Listen to the 411 on Wrestling Podcast LIVE!
POLITICS
// Obama Leads In Florida, Ohio, & VIrginia
MMA
// 411's MMA Roundtable - UFC 146: Dos Santos vs. Mir
GAMES
// WWE '13 Trailer Gets Leaked


  MY 411
User name
Password
Register now! | Forgot your password?
 MUST READ
//  Occupy Wall Street Protesters Arrested
//  Apparently Assassinating U.S. Citizens Without a Trial is Totally Cool If a Nobel Prize Winner Does It
//  Is Rick Perry a Racist?
//  Reminder – There is Still No Good Reason to Support the Death Penalty
//  Obama’s Jobs Plan Won’t Help the Long-Term Unemployed
//  Nanny State Now Wants to Regulate Nannies (and All Domestic Workers)
//  Obama's Jobs Speech
//  The Choice: Perry vs. Obama
SYNDICATE  SYNDICATE



411mania RSS Feeds





Follow 411mania on Twitter!




Add 411 On Facebook
 



 
 411mania » Politics » Blog Entry
Santorum Blows Out Romney, Beats Him In MN, CO, & MO
Posted by Ashish on 02.08.2012



Rick Santorum blew out Mitt Romney tonight, beating him in Minnesota, Colorado, and Missouri. Some thoughts:

* It's been said but needs to be said again: Romney is one of the weakest Republican frontrunners in history. The guy has a massive financial advantage, has the entire Republican establishment supporting him, has the biggest Super PACs supporting him, has what is supposed to be the biggest ground game in the Republican primary, and has the sniff of inevitability, and yet he trips all over himself every chance he gets. How does a frontrunner in his position finish THIRD in Minnesota?

* Romney can make all the excuses he wants about getting his ass kicked so badly in Missouri, but the fact is, in a bellwether swing state in the heart of America, where we finally got a glimpse of what a one-on-one race would be like since Gingrich wasn't on the ballot, Romney got absolutely destroyed. There is no way to spin that. Yes, Romney didn't campaign there, but Santorum didn't really do much there either. Romney dominated in Colorado in 2008 and got beat there this time around. He outspent Santorum in Minnesota and finished third. These aren't the types of results the frontrunner usually sees at this point in the process.

* It was an embarrassing night for Romney who will now again have to go ultra negative with gobs of money in the next few states to regain his footing. It's starting to become pretty clear that Romney can't win unless he floods a state with money and negative ads. He won't have the luxury to do that in the general election.

* Romney isn't a guy who wins because people actually want to vote for him. He wins wherever he outspends his opponents by huge amounts and runs non-stop negative advertising. Every time he has tried to let his message and his personality speak for themselves, he has lost. Again, he won't have a money advantage in the fall. How does he plan to win then? He better come up with something.

* This was the first night since Romney's "poor" comment that we got actual votes -- the results seem to indicate that the comment hurt Romney very badly. Expect the Obama campaign to play that comment on ads non-stop during the general election.

* Newt Gingrich had an embarrassing night, losing everywhere and finishing dead last in Minnesota. Because the Republican electorate is so divided and so unhappy with all these candidates, he'll still have a chance to rebound when we get to more Southern states. But it's hard for him to paint himself as the main Romney alternative now. The reality is that Gingrich has now lost 7 out of 8 states. Santorum can now claim four wins (IA, MO, MN, CO), more than Romney's three (NH, FL, NV).

* Santorum's victory speech was his strongest yet. Unlike Romney, who badly needs a new stump speech, Santorum actually has some heart in his speeches. He has a populist tone and tries to connect with people. Romney's been repeating basically the same speech for so long now that he seems to run through the words without any emotion.

* Santorum has the highest favorability rating of any of the Republican candidates which is important to note going forward, because that's the number that will probably result in him doing better than Gingrich, who has seen his favorability sink in the last few weeks.

* The problem for Santorum is that he will now face an onslaught of attack ads from Romney. Gingrich has learned how dirty Romney's campaign plays, and Santorum will too.

* Turnout, again, was down everywhere compared to 2008. This Republican primary process seems to have wrecked the Republican enthusiasm that existed in 2010 and after. Turnout has been down in most of the states thus far, a sign that these candidates aren't getting Republican voters out to the polls in big numbers. John McCain was getting bigger turnouts in the Republican primary in 2008 at this point. These turnout numbers indicate a major lack of enthusiasm in the party behind Romney, who is the face of the party right now. Just how bad has turnout been? Obama turned out half as many voters by himself in an unopposed caucus with no campaign in Colorado as all the GOP candidates combined.

None of this should really impact reality -- Romney is very likely to be the Republican nominee. What it does impact is that this race will drag on longer, more of Romney's flaws will continue to get exposed, and these candidates will continue to attack each other to the delight of the Obama campaign. The infighting among Republicans has done damage, as we have seen in Obama's rising approval ratings and the fact that Obama is now defeating Romney in virtually all the general election polls that have come out in the last few weeks.

The other thing to note is that Romney's inability to wrap things up may force him to go further to the right in order to appease Republican primary voters and secure the nomination. Moving to the right will hurt him greatly in the general election, and that is what Obama is hoping for -- to get Romney locked in on some far-right positions that he can then use against him in a few months.

We now have a few weeks before voting resumes in Michigan and Arizona on the 28th (Maine is on Saturday, but unlikely to get a lot of media attention due to how small a caucus it is -- expect Ron Paul to win), giving these candidates time to tear each other down more. Expect Romney to return to the formula that won him Florida -- outspending everyone by millions and saturating the markets with attack ads. Santorum should get a fresh boost of momentum and money while Gingrich really stumbled badly. How he responds will be interesting, mostly since it's impossible to predict what Gingrich will do. Romney is the favorite to win Michigan and Arizona, but we'll see how polls change following Santorum's three wins.


Post Comment (22)  |  Email Ashish  |  View Ashish's 411 Profile

  Send To Friend  |    Stumble It!  |    Digg It!  | 



Please add your comment below.
If you are registered, you can login and post under your registered name. If not, you can post as a guest or register.

* Please note that 411 moderates all comments. Your comment will show up on the site after it has been approved by an editor.
 
Name : 
Comment : 
Remaining Characters : 
2800
 

Comments (22)

 
Rick Santorum wins states. The republican party shows its true. vile, colours

Posted By: Bloodied (Guest)  on February 08, 2012 at 02:20 AM

 
 
Hey, Ashish, did you miss last election where Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were fighting for the nomination into June? While McCain had things wrapped up early.

That really hurt that Obama guy. I wonder what happened to him?


Posted By: Guest#3322 (Guest)  on February 08, 2012 at 03:49 AM

 
 
I guess that's better than Romney blowing out Santorum... If you know what I mean...

Posted By: Guest#6717 (Guest)  on February 08, 2012 at 06:07 AM

 
 
For everyone against abortion might I encourage you to view the movie freakonomics where they say (and have stastical data and research to back it up) the crime rate has dropped in this country since the 1970's BECAUSE abortion is legal.

The criminals didn't even have the chance to be born is the overriding theme.

Ponder that next time you want to make abortion illegal.


Posted By: Guest#2156 (Guest)  on February 08, 2012 at 08:52 AM

 
 
Guest2156,

So killing babies before they do anything wrong is what liberals recommend for curbing crime?

That's your platform?

And Guest3322 is right, Obama and Clinton fought like dogs until June...and other primaries have been just as long.

This helps Romney in the long run. He can define himself against a true conservative and come across more appealing to independents.

Republicans are going to vote against Obama.

Independents will vote for the best candidate and right now that's Romney.

Obama is toast, half his base is pissed off at him for once again being giant hypocrite.


Posted By: Grant (Guest)  on February 08, 2012 at 09:25 AM

 
 
Guest2156,

So killing babies before they do anything wrong is what liberals recommend for curbing crime?

That's your platform?

Posted By: Grant (Guest) on February 08, 2012 at 09:25 AM

You're a total TOOL! Why I even respond to such trolling I don't know, but I will give you a cookie today...my gift to you Grant.

Try reading and understanding what was said instead of interjecting your typical spin. NO that is NOT what is being advocated fool, just an interesting correlation for people to think about dumb ass


Posted By: Guest#6339 (Guest)  on February 08, 2012 at 11:37 AM

 
 
I have a question for all the Pro-Life people. How many foster kids have they welcomed into their home and how many unwanted children have they adopted ?

Posted By: Guest#6837 (Guest)  on February 08, 2012 at 12:36 PM

 
 
it is a scary thing when a bigot like santorum can win any kind of vote.

Posted By: jd (Guest)  on February 08, 2012 at 12:49 PM

 
 
This helps Romney in the long run. He can define himself against a true conservative and come across more appealing to independents.

Posted By: Grant (Guest) on February 08, 2012 at 09:25 AM

A true conservative set the table for Obamacare and wears magic underware? I never would have guessed it!


Posted By: Guest#5579 (Guest)  on February 08, 2012 at 01:30 PM

 
 
Pro-life people tend to adopt more than people who have abortions...

Do you even think about what you write?

Why would a person dead set on killing his or her own kid want to adopt someone else’s?

Do you really want to agrue who adopts more because that is a very easy answer and you know it.


Posted By: Grant (Guest)  on February 08, 2012 at 02:53 PM

 
 
Pro-life people tend to adopt more than people who have abortions...

Do you even think about what you write?

Why would a person dead set on killing his or her own kid want to adopt someone else’s?

Do you really want to agrue who adopts more because that is a very easy answer and you know it.

Posted By: Grant (Guest) on February 08, 2012 at 02:53 PM


I will ask a question I ask all pro-life folks:

Considering that half the population believe abortion should be legal and a large majority believe it should be legal in cases of rape and incest, do you really believe abortion is going anywhere?

The current legal strategy to overturn Roe v. Wade is simply to have the decision returned to the states, so you do realize there will always be states where it remains legal like New York, California, Massachusetts, etc?

Why not focus all your energies and resources to making the alternative to abortion of carrying the fetus to term and then placing it immediately with a willing adoptive family an easier and more desirable choice?

As it stands now a woman with an unwanted pregnancy is on her own financially and emotionally and after the birth knows that as often as not the child will be adopted by the local social service agency, not a loving family.


Posted By: Guest#7234 (Guest)  on February 08, 2012 at 03:57 PM

 
 
Now the Obama campaign is recruiting super-pacs and Wall Street money so he can spend a billion dollars in the fall. He is the 1 percent. Can't wait for the articles from 411 writers about that.

Posted By: Guest#7699 (Guest)  on February 08, 2012 at 05:57 PM

 
 
Now the Obama campaign is recruiting super-pacs and Wall Street money so he can spend a billion dollars in the fall. He is the 1 percent. Can't wait for the articles from 411 writers about that.

Posted By: Guest#7699 (Guest) on February 08, 2012 at 05:57 PM

Just because Obama opposed SuperPACs doesn't mean he shouldn't use them. The rules of the game changed. Romney has raised $30 million or more in SuperPAC money. It'd be like saying a NASCAR driver shouldn't use a current car, but should use the NASCAR cars they used in the 60's. The rules change, whether he likes it or not, he has to adapt the new political landscape...

Of course, the majority of Obama's money still comes from donors under $100. You know, real folks, not billionares.


Posted By: Guest#3622 (Guest)  on February 08, 2012 at 07:48 PM

 
 
Hmmm…Rick Santorum swept Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri? Really? I guess the GOP is starting to feel the heat. You can call me a conspiracy theorist all you want, I don’t care. I strongly believe that one of two things happened in last night’s elections because of all the “blowback” and accusations of fraud that stemmed from Nevada. One; the GOP wanted to show that the “unexpected results” that happened to Ron Paul, who was expected to either win, or at least get second place in Nevada, can happen to ANY candidate. And who better to set an example than the front-runner Mitt Romney? The GOP: “You see? If Mitt Romney can underperform, anybody can underperform”.
The other thing that I personally believe did happen was that they actually held honest elections last night in fear of too much blatant election fraud accusations in elections that were held so close to one another and Mr. Santorum really won. But the important question to ask and to note is how many delegates did Santorum actually pick up from all three states? Coincidentally, the answer is NONE. How convenient for the GOP and Romney to lose elections where no delegates are at stake. They had nothing to lose, and with accusations of election fraud in the air, credibility to gain. Either way, the recent fraud accusations does not reflect well on the GOP, and on Mitt Romney who has been the benefactor of all this. People are noticing and it doesn’t sit well with them. I think either of these things happened and will continue to happen until the fraud accusations start simmering down. Either way, congratulations to Mr. Santorum.


Posted By: The Watcher (Guest)  on February 08, 2012 at 08:41 PM

 
 
Great news! I like every other candidate more than Romney.

Posted By: Truth (Guest)  on February 08, 2012 at 10:13 PM

 
 
"Now the Obama campaign is recruiting super-pacs and Wall Street money so he can spend a billion dollars in the fall. He is the 1 percent. Can't wait for the articles from 411 writers about that."

Whats your point exactly? Shouldn't Obama have superpacs?


Posted By: Bob (Guest)  on February 08, 2012 at 11:17 PM

 
 
Who cares? Do you care? I dont care. Unless there was a candidate who was going to outlaw internet porn I really dont care. Neither should you. You know why? Because it doesn't matter what you think. But don't take it from me, because it doesn't matter what I think either!

Posted By: Guest#8655 (Guest)  on February 09, 2012 at 12:14 AM

 
 
By the way for all you adoption people, for everyone one good parent who adopt their are 2 bad ones who adopt kids just for the paycheck and could care less about their actual well being.

Sure in the suburbs it doesn't happen as much as the rural areas and cities, but as soon as the state get's the kids, the interview process to adopt is a joke. As long as you show you can afford it and pass a background check you get on the list.

How do I know you ask? I used to work for child services.

Some of these kids or messed up for life because of some of the situations they are put in by adoption services.

It's disturbing to see so many people think adoption is some glorious gift from the heavens when in reality it can be the exact opposite, for some of these kids. I know your going to say well it's better than not being born, I would argue, in some cases even that is debatable considering some of the circumstances.


Posted By: Victor (Guest)  on February 09, 2012 at 08:31 AM

 
 
Who cares? Do you care? I dont care. Unless there was a candidate who was going to outlaw internet porn I really dont care. Neither should you. You know why? Because it doesn't matter what you think. But don't take it from me, because it doesn't matter what I think either!

Posted By: Guest#8655 (Guest) on February 09, 2012 at 12:14 AM

All the republicans are against internet porn, contraception, and of course abortion. It was part of that whole person hood thing they got involved with.

I've voted republican since 1996 and I'm still going to vote this year for my locals, but I'm not voting any of these clowns in. They are not conservative at all, and they do not have conservative values.


Posted By: Guest#4929 (Guest)  on February 09, 2012 at 09:14 AM

 
 
They are not conservative at all, and they do not have conservative values.

Posted By: Guest#4929 (Guest) on February 09, 2012 at 09:14 AM

What exactly are "conservative values" anyway?

Is it less government? Is it balancing the Budget? Is it telling other people how they should live their lives based on the "conservative" view of morals and the world? Is it trickle down economics? is it less and less taxes and no regulation?

Used to be you had your fiscal conservatives (who really didn't want to tell others how to live and wanted a little less government but understood governments role) and your social conservatives (who could deal with government spending but were more interested in telling others how to live)...

now you just have the lump term of conservatives. So I'm just wondering what exactly a "conservative" is anymore? Really this is not a troll post I really am curious, ever since the mid 80's conservatism has changed to include religious ideology that it's really hard to understand what it even means anymore to be conservative and what a real sensible conservationism even is anymore.


Posted By: real question (Guest)  on February 09, 2012 at 10:42 AM

 
 
I agree with everything Ron has ever said, except one thing, and I know I am wrong.

Posted By: Guest#2750 (Guest)  on February 09, 2012 at 03:54 PM

 
 
They are not conservative at all, and they do not have conservative values.

Posted By: Guest#4929 (Guest) on February 09, 2012 at 09:14 AM

What exactly are "conservative values" anyway?

Is it less government? Is it balancing the Budget? Is it telling other people how they should live their lives based on the "conservative" view of morals and the world? Is it trickle down economics? is it less and less taxes and no regulation?

Used to be you had your fiscal conservatives (who really didn't want to tell others how to live and wanted a little less government but understood governments role) and your social conservatives (who could deal with government spending but were more interested in telling others how to live)...

now you just have the lump term of conservatives. So I'm just wondering what exactly a "conservative" is anymore? Really this is not a troll post I really am curious, ever since the mid 80's conservatism has changed to include religious ideology that it's really hard to understand what it even means anymore to be conservative and what a real sensible conservationism even is anymore.

Posted By: real question (Guest) on February 09, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Okay really really good question.

I really lean toward Modern Republicanism as defined by Eisenhower who really is the greatest conservative president. Which involved limited government, balanced budgets, curbing government spending, along with maintaining social harmony, social security, and strong support for many of the welfare policies as defined in the New Deal.

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”

“The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

“It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

“It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.”

“We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed 8,000 people.”


Posted By: Guest#1060 (Guest)  on February 09, 2012 at 05:18 PM

 
STAY CURRENT




Advertisement



www.41mania.com
Copyright (c) 2011 411mania.com, LLC. All rights reserved.
Click here for our privacy policy. Please help us serve you better, fill out our survey.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to our terms of use.