Skip to main content

CBS News/New York Times Poll
Joining Gallup and Pew, the CBS News/New York Times Poll out this morning shows Mitt Romney's national lead evaporating, and Newt Gingrich continuing his slow fade, as Rick Santorum takes the lead.

How meaningful is that? Well, on the one hand, it's the gazillionth lead change with everyone who wins a primary taking their turn to lead.

On the other, the CBS/NY Times poll joins the others in noting Romney's conservative problem: Santorum leads 38-24 with them, and they're the folks that vote in Republican primaries.

Self-identified conservatives divided their support among the candidates in January, but in this poll they appear to be coalescing solidly behind Santorum. He receives far more support from this group than Romney does, and conservative support for Santorum has increased since last month.
Romney's going to have to hope that the Santorum surge plays out like all his other rivals. But as we get later into the game, past performance is no assurance of future return. The NY Times version:
At the same time, another result in the poll underscores the race’s continuing fluidity. A majority of voters (6 in 10) who expressed a candidate preference said they could still change their mind – down from 74 percent who said so a month ago, but plenty with the potential to mix things up again.
Mark Blumenthal notes this about Santorum's current Michigan lead:
But with the Michigan primary still two weeks away, the volatility in Republican horse race polling so far leads to one inescapable conclusion: Santorum may lead now, but the polling may look very different by election day.
All true, and based on recent history, but you have to wonder how many times Romney gets rejected by conservatives before people start believing it's true. Even if he gets the nomination, he's a wounded candidate with diminished chances in the fall.

Funny thing is, Republicans know that as well as we do.

Note: Margin of Error +/- 5 points

Originally posted to Greg Dworkin on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 04:39 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (24+ / 0-)

    "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

    by Greg Dworkin on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 04:39:36 AM PST

  •  I am more concerned with what the voter is going (11+ / 0-)

    to do on the Congressional level because even if Obama is re-elected, the country cannot survive 4 more years of Congressional gridlock.  

    •  From where I sit (11+ / 0-)

      gridlock is one of the better alternatives (though clearly not the best).

      If the GOP gets both houses of Congress some really bad stuff is going to come through, and Obama will end up signing some of it.

      If the GOP gets both houses and the presidency, we're all in huge trouble.

      There are worse things than gridlock.

      A definition is the enclosing of a wilderness of ideas within a wall of words -- Samuel Butler

      by A Mad Mad World on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 06:09:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There's no way (4+ / 0-)

        If Obama is reelected that the Republicans get both houses of Congress.  Best they can hope for is to hold onto the House, and the odds are very good with an Obama win that their hold on the House will be reduced.

        Still not the best case since Republicans will still be able to block anything they really don't like, but still - better than them holding the keys to both houses.

        •  I agree, in the spirit of Hope and Change. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Larsstephens

          The only way we can move forward is to retain the Senate (odds favor the GOP because roughly two-thirds of the seats that are up are now held by Democrats), hopefully change some key rules - to hell with traditional behavior, comity and bi-partisanship! - and get a House majority ... which will be less workable than it sounds because, just like 2008, a lot of House Democrats are House Blue Dogs, a condition that pre-existed the Tea Party by decades.

          Hopefully - unlike 2008 when Barack Obama had to marshall a challenge against a family, its political dynasty and a national Democratic Party owned and controlled largely by others and necessarily had to organize a loner campaign for most of the summer - he can expand his personal franchise and many, many Democrats on the "down ticket" will accept how much he and his outspoken advocacy can help them.

          If Obama wins but the GOP gets both Houses, we will inevitably enjoy Obstructionism Writ Large and Veto Politicks for the next two years ... and That. Will. Be. Awful.

          Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

          by TRPChicago on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 09:02:03 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  NO, they do have a realistic chance (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Larsstephens

          of winning both houses, even in the situation of Obama being re elected.  This is especially true in the case of a Romney nominee.  If Romney is the nominee, Obama is in, I have no doubt.    BUT....

           With a total lack of base support, Romney really has almost zero chance of winning in the general, but the voters who are so hard care baggers that they would willing lose to Obama and not vote for Romney are most certainly not going to vote Dem down line.  They might skip the first question at the top, but still vote down ticket.  

          It just happens to be an election year in which we have so much more to defend (literally double in the case of the Senate) as far as Congress goes.  That's alot to defend when they only need 4 to change control.     We can't let a meme grow of "if Obama wins re election then Congress is a sure thing"  because it is simply false.

           GOTV like your life depends on it in local races or we will have hell in 2013 and beyond, even with an Obama win.

  •  I still can't imagine a scenario where (10+ / 0-)

    Santorum wins the nomination -- but if he does, I am so looking forward to his debate with Pres Obama.

    The search for truth and knowledge is one of the finest attributes of a man, though often it is most loudly voiced by those who strive for it the least -- Albert Einstein

    by theKgirls on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 04:57:11 AM PST

  •  Ed Kilgore with a good summary of (13+ / 0-)

    S3: Santorum Surge Skepticism

    In the end though, Mitt’s money may come to the rescue. Even if he doesn’t go heavily negative, Romney can use his heavy money advantage to saturate the airwaves in these two states; Santorum can’t possibly match that unless his top Super-PAC donor, Foster Friess, drops an unimaginable amount of money on him. And if Romney does stage a February 28 comeback, the road gets much rockier for Santorum. Gingrich is likely to make a final stand on Super Tuesday in Oklahoma, Tennessee, and certainly Georgia, which will make a conservative consolidation for Santorum difficult. Rick won’t win Mitt’s own Massachusetts and isn’t even on the ballot in Virginia. His best shot then would rest on a breakthrough in Ohio—but that’s only possible if the money is there.

    "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

    by Greg Dworkin on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 04:58:15 AM PST

    •  and nate counters with (10+ / 0-)

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 05:32:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  There is a huge gap in the polling (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mr MadAsHell, Larsstephens

      between PPP and the rest of pollsters.  If the race is really essentially tied, Santorum's bounce proved somewhat limited.  Certainly it is not the sort of bounce that ends races (see Kerry in 2004, for example).  

      It may be that the polling has actually caught the bounce receding (from 39 in PPP to 30).  

      In 2008 Clinton had really tried to make Super Tuesday the knock-out punch.  This got derailed by Obama's South Carolina bounce, and by Obama's focus on caucus states which meant he matched her in delegates.

      If you look at the delegates on Super Tuesday, Romney wins Virgina (49 delegates) and Mass (41).  He probably wins Vermont as well (17).  If Gingrich holds Georgia, then Romney + Gingrich will have 183 delegates out of 466 at stake at the minimum.  

      Super Tuesday may very well make it clear that a contested convention is a real possibility.  If Gingrich is able to hold Tennessee and the South in later primaries, it is going to be very difficult for Romney OR Santorum to get a majority unless one can knock the other out of the race. There is a mountain of time between now and Super-Tuesday, including at least two debates.

      The problem in all of this is just who, exactly, actually wants Romney to win?  Why would a conservative vote for the author of Romneycare?  

      The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

      by fladem on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 07:39:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  good analysis (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Larsstephens

        as always, the question is who shows? the most conservative?

        "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

        by Greg Dworkin on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 07:43:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not all Winner Take All in those states (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CPDem81, fladem, Larsstephens

           The presidential contender receiving the greatest number of votes in the state's lone Congressional District is awarded the 3 National Convention District delegates. Since Vermont has but 1 Congressional District, this is effectively a statewide winner-take-all contest.
            11 At-Large (10 At-Large plus 1 Bonus) Delegates to the Republican National Convention are bound to presidential contenders according to the statewide vote.
                If one candidate receives 50% or more of the vote, that candidate receives all 11 At-Large delegates.
                Otherwise, the At-Large delegates are proportionally bound to those candidates receiving at least 20% of the statewide vote. The party's rules do not specifically detail how rounding is applied nor do they specify what is to happen should no candidate receives the requisite 20%.

        MA has a 15% threshold

        We have discussed open primary VA before, but I'll point out it's Winner Take Most, not all as there are CD delegates.

    •  I just can't imagine why Romney has waited (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Larsstephens

      so long, for one.  AND for two....what Romney could attack him with that won't bring even more baggers to Rick.  

      What....that he is an insane woman-hating, gun loving, anti choice, homophobe?

      The rabid right will crash the "donate to rick" servers on that "attack"!  That's what they are looking for...even in a sweater vest.

  •  Romney's numbers (8+ / 0-)

    are almost unchanged since last month's polls -- it appears that the Looney Tunes vote (with all apologies to Messrs. Bugs Bunny, Elmer Fudd, et. al.) is abandoning Gingrich and flocking to NotRomney #5 (or is it #6?, or is it #6, pt. II, since they were there once before), Santorum.

    This, in turn, suggests that Newt will say or do something grotesquely spectacular (or, perhaps better, spectacularly grotesque) in the very near future in a last chance to grab hold of the final tendrils of attention as we see the last death throes of his relevance ...

    -- Stu

  •  In other words, Santorum gets Gingrich's votes (11+ / 0-)

    ...which were actually never Newt's in the first place.

    A big heap of 'buyer's remorse' is a comin' republicans way in the fall.

    Here we are now Entertain us I feel stupid and contagious

    by Scarce on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 05:09:23 AM PST

  •  Romney in Detroit news op ed doubles down (14+ / 0-)

    He actually stands by letting Detroit go bankrupt.

    This guy is the worst major presidential candidate I've ever seen.

  •  Religious Right Got its First Act Together nt (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    middleoftheroadDem, Larsstephens

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 05:24:43 AM PST

  •  Michigan primary...RMoney's last stand (11+ / 0-)

    "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

    by justmy2 on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 05:36:50 AM PST

  •  Mitt's ace in the hole is that he has (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, middleoftheroadDem, IM, Larsstephens

    the Willie Horton adster working for him, and now that his SuperPac has unlimited $$s to spend on that shit, he shouldn't have much trouble taking Santorum down.

      •  This fight between Santorum and Rmoney is like the (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Amber6541, Larsstephens

        one between Obama and the Clintons in South Carolina ....the harder he hits him the worst off Rmoney will be because Santorum have 70%+ approval from conservatives, he is not Newt.

        /If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer/. Thoreau

        by hron on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 06:27:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Read the article, this guy (McCarthy) (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Larsstephens

          is extremely clever at the art of the negative ad.

          For example, he totally took down Newt in Iowa (Santorum wasn't seen as much of a threat then, I guess).

          So he might not go for a hard hitting approach, he can play the dog whistle thing to the max.

          •  there is no magic in the world. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Larsstephens

            1. Newt had little money and restraints but on him counter punches (don't talk about Bain Capital in FL that is what his financier told him).

            Barack Obama is the president, he is not some has been former speaker whom nobody supported with the sole redeeming quality (according to his supporters) of being the better debater....Rmoney just needed Newt not to deliver one of his rants in the two debates that preceded the FL vote. Rmoney is WEAK, there is no other way of putting it. in 2008 he was bullied by McCain and you saw what Obama did to McCain.

            /If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer/. Thoreau

            by hron on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 08:42:03 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I agree that Mitt is in a weak position (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Larsstephens

              that's why he has to resort to this shit, much like George H W Bush had to back in 1988.

              And note that my comments were only meant to apply to Romney vs. all the GOP dwarfs coming his way.  I trust that the seasoned Obama team will be much less vulnerable.

  •  He Who Must Not Be Googled is now leading? (6+ / 0-)

    Well, it's official: The GOP has lost its mind.

    How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

    by BenderRodriguez on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 05:46:27 AM PST

  •  oh, and btw... (9+ / 0-)

    U.S. Economic Confidence Best in a Year

    http://www.gallup.com/...

    "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

    by Greg Dworkin on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 06:07:09 AM PST

  •  The fact that Romney has to spend all (7+ / 0-)

    that money taking down marginal nobodies like Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum doesn't speak very well of his stature as a candidate.

    More and more, it looks as if the GOP has essentially written off this cycle on the presidential line.  What few smart people they have left can't possibly believe that anybody in their current field of presidential candidates has any real electability.  

    Even before we get to the obnoxious personalities, the GOP field time has been spectacularly bad politically.  

    I won't be that pleased if Rick Santorum wins in Michigan because he'll still be Rick Santorum, but I'll be ok if the voters reject Romney.  Mitt Romney is a guy in serious need of redirection.  

    •  The GOP write off the presidency? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      scribeboy, Remediator, Larsstephens

      They are hoping to pack the court!!

      I really doubt they will write it off.  The Kochs really have nothing else to buy anyway.  

      But if they do, watch out for their reach in other races, such as the US senate and the state house and governorships.  

      Heck, even if they don't, they will attempt to get a stranglehold on state governments

      The robb'd that smiles steals something from the thief. -- Shakespeare

      by not2plato on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 07:37:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  At first pass it doesn't sound like (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Larsstephens

        anything they'd be likely to do but on the other hand, a quick review of their prez candidates this year bolsters the claim.  

        Agree with you on both chambers of the Congress.  We need to mount a full-court press on that front, definitely.  

  •  forgive me (8+ / 0-)

    I know it is much less than a noble sentiment but I must confess that one of the best things about the GOPer campaign season has been the repeated and now near-complete slap down delivered to the evil Gingrich. Having his laundry spread around, being the target of millions of ads just shredding his integrity, honesty, stability, and judgment, and rising again and again only to be crushed again and again. Now he fades quietly into irrelevance - the very worst possible punishment for the man - to slink back into his cave far more damaged than when the process started.

    Am I a bad person for taking so much joy in Newt's trajectory of misfortune?

  •  Maybe Santorum will show some pity on Mitt (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Remediator, Amber6541, skyounkin, askew

    and put him on the ticket as VP, or maybe make him ambassador to the Cayman Islands.

  •  Hope Santorum wins MI (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    frenchman, Matt Z

    "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

    by LaurenMonica on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 06:12:12 AM PST

  •  Santorum 2012 (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    UTvoter, skyounkin, Matt Z

    Because Eight Years of Bush Wasn't Enough.

    27, white male, TX-26 (current), TN-07 (originally), liberal-leaning independent

    by TDDVandy on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 06:14:07 AM PST

  •  Never in the field of human conflict... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    UTvoter, skyounkin, not2plato, Matt Z

    ...have so many fought so hard for something of so little value to so few.

    But nobody's buying flowers from the flower lady.

    by Rich in PA on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 06:14:42 AM PST

  •  A (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skyounkin, not2plato, drmah, Matt Z

    Liberal, a moderate and a conservative walk into a bar.
    The bartender says "Hi Mitt!"

    "White-collar conservatives flashing down the street. Pointing their plastic finger at me."

    by BOHICA on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 06:15:43 AM PST

  •  Wealth class warrior vs. culture wars.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    not2plato

    Each candidate represents the two of three wings of the GOP...the wealthy and the bigots. I guess with Obama kicking the shit out of terrorists the "nuke 'em all" candidate wouldn't get much traction this year.

    The uptick in the economy has the GOP spooked. If they go all in on Romney - the "CEO President" - with weak social conservative credentials and the economy keeps rebounding they are DEAD.

    Going with St. Rick is within their comfort zone because the culture wars can always be ginned up out of thin air. If the economy gets too bullish and our national defense too strong, they can always pull some kernel of some policy to show how we are ~this~ close to sliding into oblivion. The problem is this isn't 1994 and abortion and gays just don't bring out the inner asshole in indies the way it used to.

    I think they are toast. Even the GOP in Congress are keeping the powder dry, trying to figure out their next move. I'm sensing a blue rout in 2012....

  •  A modest proposal. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    not2plato, frenchman, Bailey2001

    We've all had our fun riffing off Santorum's Google problem. I know I have.
    It may be time for us to retire it.
    He may very well win the nomination.
    I don't think the Google thing will win us one single vote, or one single convert to our cause.
    I think it possibly could cost us a single vote here and there.
    Santorum's own words and policies and past actions will defeat him. Let's not make a victim out of him any further.

    •  many straight news stories that (5+ / 0-)

      sees Santorum go up in the polls says "Santorum surges'.

      Gallup: Santorum Surges to Tie Romney

      of course, there's always

      ABC News: Rick Santorum Takes His Turn On Top (The Note)

      plea rejected.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 06:24:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I wasn't taking exception to your title, per se, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DemFromCT

        I think you're right.
        However, in our comments we should start focusing more on the meat and potatoes of what is seriously wrong with a Santorum candidacy.
        I think.

        Also, I don't think we can get the genie back into the bottle completely. I think we should focus on the serious stuff here on out though.

      •  real semantics (0+ / 0-)

        Nobody thinks "teabagger" is a sexual innuendo anymore.

        "Santorum" was always kind of an inside joke. I f he gets the nomination or a place on the ticket...people who bring this joke up will be asked BY DEMOCRATS to kindly shut up.

        For the record: it's time for us to wish Mitt well. You never know what's going to happen in life, and there's no percentage in having a crazy religious person be in a position to become President because of some weird series of unforeseen events.

        •  sorry (0+ / 0-)

          I wuill continue to root for the unelectable candidate over the one that does better in the polls.

          Right now, that's Santorum.

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 08:46:26 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  no nominee is unelectable (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bailey2001
            •  sure they are (0+ / 0-)

              you think sarah palin will be president? Giuliani? Fred Thompson? herman cain?

              good luck with that.

              "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

              by Greg Dworkin on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 09:22:08 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  next to the definition of cliché (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                fsbohnet

                None of the people you mention were nominated for the Presidency.

                My point is perfectly simple, and amply clarified in my comments this a.m. It's also implied in the definition of "nominee".

                Number crunching would be perfect if you didn't have to have all those words around it, wouldn't it?

                "Good luck with that" - good grief, you mean. What are you, some sort of undifferentiated bundle of Internet memes, or what?

                •  you mean instead of vague angst? (0+ / 0-)

                  santorum is unelectable and I hope he is the nominee.

                  so does the WH, but both they and i expect romney.

                  "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                  by Greg Dworkin on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 11:23:21 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It wouldn't be vague (0+ / 0-)

                    if it happened.

                    Good definition of "learning from history", though.

                    •  want quantitative? (0+ / 0-)

                      In the end, we don't pick the nominee, they do. And how electable Santorum really is will be answered if he gets the nomination.

                      As for quantitative, nate has this today and a Sun NYT mag article:

                      Given Mr. Obama’s current approval ratings and consensus forecasts on the economy, he rates as about a 60 percent favorite to win the popular vote against Mitt Romney, with somewhat higher chances against any of the other Republicans running for the nomination.
                      http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/...

                      Santorum's chance of winning is less than 25%. That's pretty bad. And it's before he's well known. let's see where he stands after MI, not against Romney but against Obama, after he is better defined.

                      Historical models fail because none of them are 2012, or Santorum. But if you want to look to the past, look at Bob Dole.

                      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                      by Greg Dworkin on Wed Feb 15, 2012 at 12:30:58 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

              •  But Santorum is not Palin, Perry or even Newt (0+ / 0-)

                in multiple ways, he is not.  He doesn't have their type of baggage.  No real scandals, no crimes, no groping 10 women,  no multiple marriages, no half terms as a Governor, no toxic and fatal slips of the tongue, debate skills are worthy of their own personal comedy hour such as Perry etc.  

                 The baggage he does have is simply gourmet prime aged steak to his base...he is going to fire them up and that is Romney's fatal flaw. In the general, with a fired up tea party and fickle independents, Rick could be a very dangerous thing, especially if we say he is unelectable and dismiss him as such.

              •  What I'm most interest in seeing is for the (0+ / 0-)

                totally unacceptable gop candidates to wind up beating one another to a pulp and for the gop to further descend into total chaos.
                I think we will win the Presidential race, but I won't take it for granted, and I want to see us get the House back.
                I want us to get a whole new generation of committed voters and more women candidates, and robust local organizations and networks.
                The works.
                I'm ready to see the country go forward for a while.

        •  I'm guilty of using tea bagger. (0+ / 0-)

          True, I don't even think of why I use it anymore...I just call them "baggers".

    •  I agree. I have been am over it. (0+ / 0-)

      Honestly, I think it sounds kind of like middle school type taunts and Rick has plenty of adult issues we can attack him with in an adult manner.

      I think it will turn off a few people if we continue it.

  •  Where are the head-to-head match-up between (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drmah

    POTUS and the dog-variations (man-on-dog/Dog-on-car)

    /If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer/. Thoreau

    by hron on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 06:23:25 AM PST

  •  Manic Behavior in All Its Glory (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    not2plato

    Republican electorate, how fickle Ye be
    One wonders what malady creates the jerk in that knee

    This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

    by Beetwasher on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 06:25:45 AM PST

  •  Conservatives are so fickle. (0+ / 0-)

    Neck deep in Santorum.  A month ago I would never have imagined this.

    ....no longer in SF.... -9.00, -7.38

    by TFinSF on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 06:33:25 AM PST

  •  Well if they want mr frothy I say fine. (0+ / 0-)

    that is just too absurd to even believe, but then this is the party of bush and palin.......stranger things have happened.

    "You've got to stop this war in Afghanistan." final words of R Holbrooke

    by UTvoter on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 07:03:20 AM PST

  •  Darn it. People keep talking about Santorum (0+ / 0-)

    surging and I have to go see if it has moved up on Google.

    Then there's romney to check.    So time consuming.

    :)   It is going to be interesting to see how the rethug primary here turns out.   I'm hoping that they're all so disgusted they don't bother.

    Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by maybeeso in michigan on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 07:04:17 AM PST

  •  I hope RS can continue to cause problems (0+ / 0-)

    But I just read Chuck Norris' hit piece on him -- for being too liberal!  Chuck is backing Newt because of the stuff RS did wrong.  Its quite a list.  

    http://rightwingnews.com/...

    Here are a few highlights:

    –Santorum voted for the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, which removed duties on textile and apparel goods traded among participating nations, resulting in nearly all textile companies leaving the South.

    –Santorum voted against the National Right to Work Act of 1995, which would have repealed provisions of federal law that require employees to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment.

    –Santorum voted for taxes in the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act.

    –Santorum voted for the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996, which raised the minimum wage, allowed punitive damages for injury or illness to be taxed, allowed damages for emotional distress to be taxed, and repealed the diesel fuel tax rebate to purchasers of diesel-powered cars and light trucks.

    –Santorum voted in 1997 to support the Lautenberg gun ban, “which stripped law-abiding gun owners of their Second Amendment rights for life, simply because they spanked their children or did nothing more than grab a spouse’s wrist,” according to a press release from Dudley Brown, executive director of the National Association for Gun Rights.

    –Santorum voted in 1999 for a bill “disguised as an attempt to increase penalties on drug traffickers with guns … but it also included a provision to require federal background checks at gun shows,” according to Brown.

    –Santorum sponsored legislation to force companies to pay laid-off workers benefits.

    –Santorum worked for an increase in funding Head Start and other big-government programs.

    –Santorum voted for taxpayer money to go to Pennsylvania families for their heating bills.

    –Santorum voted for HR 796, a bill that would have protected abortion clinics.

    –Santorum actively supports The Global Fund To Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which “channels a large portion of its funds through Planned Parenthood’s affiliates around the world and through a British group Marie Stopes International (the largest chain of abortion mills in the UK),” according to a letter from the Gerard Health Foundation, which provides millions of dollars to pro-life groups.

    –Santorum opposed the tea party and its reforms in the Republican Party, saying, “I’ve got some real concerns about (the libertarian) movement within the Republican Party and the tea party movement to sort of refashion conservatism, and I will vocally and publicly oppose it.”

    What a litany of sins, eh?  Use public funds to keep the heat on in tax payers' homes?  Unthinkable!  What a sin against the rightie creed!  Paying laid off workers?  Is this an attempt to interfere with God's will to punish these people?  And what about raising the minimum wage?  Is that anti-natural or what?

    The robb'd that smiles steals something from the thief. -- Shakespeare

    by not2plato on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 07:09:06 AM PST

  •  I honestly don't think santorum is going anywhere (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drmah, frenchman

    but up.

    He doesn't have the baggage issues all the other "Not-mitts" have that eventually brought all the other "not-mitts" down.  

    He is an honest, straight up conservative whack-job who the ignorant voters will flock to thinking that he will protect their god and guns from the gays, liberals and most importantly- he will protect them from the black muslim socailist hitler reincarnated nazi in the white house.

    "I'm not scared of anyone or anything, Angie. Isn't that the way life should be?" Jack Hawksmoor

    by skyounkin on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 07:14:57 AM PST

  •  I no longer dismiss Santorum (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    frenchman

    I can see that he will have a real appeal to low info, non political whites - the single largest voting bloc in America.

    I know my mom will vote for Obama over richie rich Romney, but she'll love Santorum. All she'll see is a nice sincere Catholic with a lot of kids. There will be no talking her out of voting for him, and she's pretty typical of a lot of reliable voters her age.

  •  Good news/bad news for Romney (0+ / 0-)

    Bad news for Romney is that there is no real slam dunk criticism of Santorum the way there was with Gingrich. No messy personal life, ethics issues, Freddie Mac lobbying, no sitting with Pelosi, etc. Santorum is also more conservative, connects better with the base, and isnt disliked by the establishment as much as Gingrich.

    Good news for Romney is Santorum is a bit gaff prone. Look at him blaming his wife for some controversial part of his book, or his comments on women in combat. It's quite possible he makes some gaffe that turns even conservatives off, and helps Romney.    

  •  the story thus far (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TLS66

    This is paradoxical and unprovable but here goes anyway.

    The bum-of-the-month club we've had so far has been driven by coverage - paid and earned media. Bachmann was getting loads of coverage, tons. Then Perry got tons, and bought tons (and tons more of his idiocy). Then Cain was a big story.

    These were all national newbies and their poll numbers in various localities and nationally were driven by the news. A corollary to this says that the US population tends to become more sensitive to coverage as time goes by and educational levels drop in real terms (people are getting slowly stupider).

    BUT Santorum is the exception. He won Iowa the hard way, and then got fiddled out of it. He knew then that he would have to wait until the primary calendar came back to his strong area, the "heartland" Midwest. He also knew that letting the Missouri primary and the Minnesota primary fly under the radar was a good idea. As for Colorado, I think Baptist preachers brought that one in. Santorum is considered the subject of a prophecy these days, and it ain't from Joseph Smith. Wait till you see what happens in Texas.

    Santorum is going to win in Michigan. After that, whether or not Newt can hang on in Ohio is the big question. I think Santorum comes on to win there after Michigan.

    Taking all not-on-ballot situations into account, I think the stop-Santorum movement simple has to hope that Mitt can win somewhere on his own, or just scrape up enough proportional delegates.

    However, if Newt can hang on to some proportional strength in the South, and if Ron Paul's nefarious delegate-getting strategies actually work as advertised, then a convention where no candidate has a majority going in is not only possible, it is likely.

    Long story short: at first, and for a long time, it looked like Romney's money was impossible to defeat. But then Santorum came along, and he represents a deliberate contradiction of the money theory (which was looking good until the other night). When people get ahold of the idea that they are being bought, they look to see if there is an acceptable alternative.

    Yes, Santorum would be marginally weaker than Romney on paper. But that's no excuse for hoping that a crazy person gets a major party nomination.

    •  more than marginally weaker (0+ / 0-)

      Santorum wasn't planning for this he had to lay low because he has no money and no organization.
      santorum lost by 17 points last time he ran (PA sen).

      He loses the women's vote, and that's more than half the population.

      Santorum also boxes them into 1964 extremism.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 09:20:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm beginning to worry (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bailey2001

    I don't want Little Ricky anywhere NEAR the White House.  I can't say "That won't happen." First, I said that he'd never get out from the third tier of candidates, then I said he'd not be serious competition for Romney, then I said he'd never overtake Romney. Now, look! I know how in 1980, Carter's people wanted Reagan to be the nominee because they thought Carter would cream him.  I'm wondering how Reagan fared against Carter in February of that year.

    "Valerie, why am I getting all these emails calling me a classless boor?"

    by TLS66 on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 10:39:03 AM PST

    •  this isn't 1980 (0+ / 0-)

      end of comparison

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 11:21:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So, you're thinking that (0+ / 0-)

        if the slim possibility Santorum gets nominated will come to pass, this will be more like the French presidential election of 2002?  If you remember, that was the year the far rightist "National Front" candidate Jean LePen got into the runoff. The incumbent, Jacques Chirac, creamed him with 82% of the vote (though in Obama's case, I'm thinking 63% would be generous).

        "Valerie, why am I getting all these emails calling me a classless boor?"

        by TLS66 on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 02:06:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  you can come up with a hundred examples, (0+ / 0-)

          all of them pointless, that have nothing whatever to do with rick santorum.

          He would be an awful candidate. I really hope we get the chance to prove it.

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 07:25:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Santorum should be easy to beat., but Dems need (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bailey2001, TLS66

    to get out and vote, and not think this is oging to be an easy win.

  •  We need to treat Santorum seriously (0+ / 0-)

    Perhaps mention Karen Santorum's second semester abortion and the fact that she cohabited with an abortion doctor. I usually dislike going after the wife ... but she as much a hypocrite as he and is aiding and abetting his campaign.

    "Valerie, why am I getting all these emails calling me a classless boor?"

    by TLS66 on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 05:57:47 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site