E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS“Rick Santorum catapulted back into the primary limelight last night, stunning presumed Republican front-runner Mitt Romney in the Colorado caucuses while handily winning in Minnesota and Missouri. Although none of the votes were binding, the trio of losses sows doubts about the former Massachusetts governor’s ability to win over conservatives in the nation’s heartland,” the Boston Globe writes. “Santorum’s close victory in Colorado, considered the prize of the night, came despite aggressive campaigning by Romney in a state where he dominated eventual nominee John McCain in 2008 by more than 40 points.”
The New York Times: “The results on Tuesday shook the political world, which appeared to once again make the mistake of believing the Republican race for the presidency was finally set on a stable trajectory. But it was an open question whether the defeats were a momentary embarrassment or a prolonged setback for Mr. Romney. The triple result amounted to a stinging denial of Mr. Romney’s candidacy from three states where Republicanism is defined by the evangelicals and Tea Party adherents he has struggled to court this year.”
“Mitt Romney just can't shake his difficulty attracting conservatives. And that reality is undercutting his effort to cast himself as the inevitable Republican presidential nominee and prolonging a race that each day exposes deep divisions within the party,” AP’s Peoples adds.
The New York Daily News’ headline: “'Fear the sweater vest': Rick Santorum pulls off hat trick with primary victories in Minnesota, Missouri and Colorado.”
The New York Post: “Santorum whips Mitt in Colo., Minn. & Mo.” From the story: “Rick Santorum’s presidential campaign took off last night as he swept GOP primary contests in three crucial battleground states. … Santorum’s victory in Colorado was a stinging blow to Romney, who carried the Rocky Mountain state with 60 percent of the GOP vote in 2008.”
The Daily Beast: “Newt’s Two-Man-Race Narrative Collapses After Santorum Victories.”
National Review Online’s Corner blog picks up a similar narrative of moving past Gingrich: “Winning the Tuesday trifecta gives Rick Santorum a second chance to make a first impression. This will give him the momentum that his delayed Iowa victory could have given him,” Henry Olsen writes.
But Charlotte Hays with the Independent Women’s Forum on Corner blog has this warning: “If you think Rick Santorum can get independents, go for it, folks. Senator Santorum, who enjoyed a magnificent triumph in three states last night, deserves a lot of credit, as he would no doubt be the first to tell you, for hanging in there. He has been impressive in recent debates. And a grateful nation thanks Mr. Santorum for seemingly having dispatched Newt Gingrich back under his bridge, at least for the time being. But last night was not good for the Republican party.”
A round up of front pages:
The Minneapolis Star Tribune: “Santorum sweeps to victory in 3 states.”
St. Paul Pioneer Press: “Santorum on a roar.”
The Denver Post: “Santorum upsets race’s predictability.”
The Durango Herald: “Santorum comeback stuns rivals.”
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch: “Big Missouri win makes statement for Santorum.” (That’s the top front page headline despite no delegates being awarded in what was one of the closest states of the 2008 presidential election.
The Kansas City Star: “Santorum takes his turn in spotlight.”
COLORADO: Santorum won 40%-35% over Romney, Gingrich 13%, Paul 12%.
Turnout was down 6.7% from 2008. The total that voted this time around was 65,489 with 100% reporting, according to the Colorado Republican Party; 2008 was 70,229. Santorum won 44 of 64 counties. Romney won 19, Gingrich one (Bent which had a total of 51 votes.)
MINNESOTA: Santorum cleaned up with an 18-point win, 45%-27% over Paul, Romney third with 17%, Gingrich 11%.
Turnout was off in Minnesota also by about a quarter (24%). In 2008, 62,828 came out. This time around, just 47,801 turned out. And Romney got less than a third of the votes this time than in 2008. Santorum won 78 counties, Paul five, Gingrich four, and Romney zero.
MISSOURI: Santorum blew away the field in this largely uncontested beauty contest. He took a whopping 55%, with Romney second at 25%, Paul third with 12%. Gingrich wasn’t on the ballot.
Missouri wasn’t contested this time around, and it was a beauty contest, awarding no delegates based on last night’s results. But for the sake of numbers. Turnout was down 134% with 251,868 coming out in 2012 and 588,844 voting in 2008. Romney didn't even get half the vote he got in 2008, closer to a third. And Santorum won every single county.
ROMNEY: “[Yesterday], Restore Our Future, the so-called super PAC supporting Romney’s presidential candidacy, amended its latest report to the Federal Election Commission, solving the mystery of a $250,000 contribution last August from a California limited liability company that appeared to exist only on paper,” the Boston Globe writes. “The donation from ‘Glenbrook LLC’ of Redwood City was replaced with a pair of $125,000 donations from Jesse Rogers, a Palo Alto investment fund manager, and his wife, Melinda.”
“Mitt Romney’s tax returns have drawn political scrutiny on multiple fronts, like his relatively low tax rates and the money parked in a Swiss bank account. But on Capitol Hill, his returns have caught the eyes of members of both parties for what appears to be his use of a type of complex shelter that has been debated for years in battles over evasion and fairness in the tax code,” the New York Times says. “The technique in question allows nonprofit institutions and large retirement funds to exploit the advantages of shell companies set up in tax havens like the Cayman Islands by investing money with private equity firms like Bain Capital, which Mr. Romney ran. Ordinarily, such private equity investments are frequently subject to something called the unrelated business income tax. But by going offshore, pension funds, universities, foundations and even large individual retirement accounts can structure those investments to avoid that heavy tax.”
Leave a Comment:
"They're just not into you, Mitt!" Can't wait for the negative fodder against Santorum to commence. And if either of you want the majority of women to vote for you you will stay clear of our rights to contraception and abortion. Our rights to control our own bodies trumps your right to practice your religion on me.
Yeay the majority of Woman support abborting their own flesh and blood. NOT. 48% are pro-life while only 45% are pro-choice.
JFK-2112,
Big difference is . . . even though I do not support abortion myself, I will never give the government the power to dictate to my daughters or another woman what she has to do with her body. Hence, the MAJORITY of women, even if they are against abortion, are for a woman's right to choose. Get your facts straight!
Just wait till Obama Care goes into full swing and see what choices you will have. The Government owns you now!
JFK-2112,
You are clueless!
AnaBanana He's more than clueless. He's brain dead.
Dead people everywhere are insulted by you remark.
First Read: Would someone PLEASE learn math: the MO turnout of 251,868 was down 57% from the 2008 turnout of 588,844.
IF 134% less of the 2008 turnout had shown up, you would have a negative turnout, which is simply not possible.
I know that Republicans are staying away from these candidates in droves, but 134% down, don't be ridiculous. You absolutely can't have one person show up and the reduction in turn out be more than 100%.
Yes! thank you for pointing out that silly error in math. I cringed when I read it in TWO places. Hopefully they fix it!
If Santorum wins Michigan, I'll agree the race is muddled. Short of that, it still looks like only a path for Romney, at least into the convention. As I've mentioned before, going into this convention with the delegates may not mean coming out of the convention with the nomination.
Colorado was a shock. Part of that state is pretty heavily Mormon, too. Maybe that's a weakness, in a way. The non-Mormons there are probably more familiar with it than people elsewhere would be.
It's not a Mormon vs. non-Mormon thing. Romney won in Denver and its suburbs, where the LDS population is relatively small, but lost in Mesa County (Grand Junction) where the LDS population is very high. The issue would seem to be that Romney has not convinced enough conservatives (whether Mormon or not) that he will champion the policies that they want to see replace the anti-business, enviro-purist, social welfare state of Barack Obama.
paul,
Have you ever been part of a political convention?
I have and only the non committed delegates get rushed for their votes before the convention. Once the convention starts and your candidate is not winning or close on the first ballot, then the horse trading begins. Each candidate will have their guys counting every delegate vote every minute , so by the third ballot a clear winner ususally appears.
And who has the most money and establishment Republicans currently? Romney .
Northstar - I haven't been, but I do know those party rules aren't binding in any kind of a legal sense. Party nominations are the innerworkings of private groups. It's like an agreement not to play twister at a wedding reception. But once you get there, if everyone decides they want to play twister after all, then...
The only fallout is with membership, especially those who would have gotten their way with an adherence to rules (i.e., Romney supporters, presumably). Not saying a wide-open convention wouldn't have a price to pay. But if they get into a situation where the price is even bigger for allowing Romney and his delegates to rule the day, then...
Paul,
I will use your wedding analogy. Most of the work is done before the convention. Again, it is super delegates. Which is every elected GOP officials. They hold the key . They will be the ones to say that the twister question will never be up for a vote or it will .
Many years ago, the Dems organized and elected McGovern as their candidate. It was because of grassroots organizing. Many elected Dem. officials never were seated as delegates. The Dem party then changed the rules and introduced the super delegate which are automating seated at he state and national convention.
I am sure that the GOP has the same party rules.
I wonder if sweater vest sales will go up.
There are other options than Romney. Sure, he has the money. But he doesn't have the support. He can't get the far right (the Tea baggers and the values Repubs) to go for him. As Chuck Todd and the MSNBC political team has said, the argument that he's the only candidate who can beat Obama only goes so far and has lost a lot of its persuasiveness. Clearly, the GOP leaders aren't going to let Paul or Gingrich be the candidate. Not a chance. And Santorum is way to far to the right to be able to shuffle back toward the center enough to have a chance against Obama. And if Romney can't get the base to support him--and they, in fact, might well go third party on him--then the only option for the GOP is to introduce someone new at the convention. It's been done in the past. I would not be surprised if the GOP leadership was not now talking with Jeb Bush, Christy, and Daniels--and maybe Rubio. Bush, of course, would remind folks of W. Christy has already admitted he's not ready. Daniels has done crap in Indiana that would come back to bite him. But Rubio is a possibility. A lot's going to depend on what happens on Super Tuesday. If Romney can't win big that day, I think his campaign is sunk and then, the GOP is going get desperate and start looking beyond the poor candidates running now. Oh, yeah, there's also Pawlenty. Could he make a return?
Oh, and here's another wild idea for the GOP: Don't run any candidate for President. Just step back and say, we haven't got anyone willing to run whom we think could win the election, so we're putting all our money into state and local campaigns. They won't do that, and it's probably a good thing for the Dems, but it would probably be the GOP's smartest move. Of course, "smart" is the operative term there.
With Obama's approval ratings hanging consistently below 50%, there's a good chance that ANY Republican will be able to defeat him. No President has ever won reelection with numbers as pathetic as Obama's. So your idea is anything but "smart."
OK ladies, get ready for chastity belts and breeding camps with Santorum as President!
Guys, watcha' gonna do?.....Oh well.........
I'm proud of my fellow Missourians for rejecting the plastic flip flop-er. Even though I'm a proud Liberal.
And the Frothy one raises to the top of the barrel only to be skimmed off in the end.Obama 2012.
"Sanitarium Santorum" is not Presidential at all. He is not intellectual, not well read, not tolerant of others, and has no use for the rights of women. It is not realistic to have an individual that will protect only certain Americans, and reject the rights that are God given of all Americans. "Sanitarium Santorum" is not too be trusted in protecting the US Constitution, the Office Of The Presidency Of The United States, the US Bill Of Rights, and the Civil Rights Act Of 1964. "Sanitarium Santorum" talks like a "Blue Collar" guy, however his economic record is for "White Collar" values only. He has no motivation to correct intolerance in our nation, and is therefore a major part of the problem. President Obama would destroy "Sanitarium Santorum" in any poltical debate. That is fact!
I have a simple question for Ms. Hays:
If the most extreme liberal member of the Senate (based on his voting record) can win the "Independents" on his way to becoming President of the United States, why is it again that Rick Santorum can't win them?
Seems like faulty logic to me.
I have a simple question for Ms. Hays:
If the most extreme liberal in the Senate (based on his voting record) can win the Independents on his way to becoming President of the United States, why can't Rick Santorum win them? Please clear that up for me because the logic seems faulty. Wouldn't the Independents have sided with the more moderate McCain in 2008?
As a devote Rep 70 years now and friend of Ronny cowboy Reagan if we're gonna beat Pres Obama we're gonna have to get some better candidates that the ones that we have now. All these guys sound like automated used car salesmen.
Geb sounds like a good choice if he can overcome the stigma of the fact that his big brother used by his unbelievably corrupt cohorts were/are the main reason why we got into this mess to begin with. People aren't stupid and they know that the Iraq war was synthesized. I'll tell you this if we don't get someone clean enough and smart enough to know that just badmouthing the president of the United States isn't gonna make it. I thing Paul is a truthful man and a genuine candidate but he'll never make it. We need a true patriot to come forward that will stop blaming President Obama for everything bad and lying about the good things he has accomplished. We need a guy to say President Obama has tried but we need to change course and do the X,Y,Z things needed to fix our country for the benefit of the working guy. The guys we have at the podium now will never make.
Jack, where have all the reasonable Republicans gone to? You make so much sense, I'm from your era and remember when. It is really too bad we are where we are today. Peace.