Althouse: What are the chances that someone not currently running will win the GOP nomination?

December 9, 2011

What are the chances that someone not currently running will win the GOP nomination?

Nate Silver analyzes it and finds "a small but nontrivial chance that the Republican nominee could be someone like Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty or Chris Christie."

70 comments:

Meade said...: Thaddeus George "Thad" McCotter !!!; 12/9/11, 1:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Well, it's pretty clear that a large segment of the Republican base does not like Romney. This is the only explanation for this strange flavor-of-the-week phenomenon with Bachmann, Cain, and Gingrich.

This should be a two-person race between Romney and Perry, with some third dark horse appearing later. But Perry can't debate, so his candidacy looks like it will fail miserably. Pawlenty was an idiot not to stick around.

I certainly agree that several good candidates have strangely sat out. I wonder why (except with Daniels, who sat out because of odd marriage issues). I have never seen a weaker sitting president than Obama in my politically-aware lifetime.; 12/9/11, 1:31 PM
Andy said...: Commenters here love to insult Obama, but with three years of time to prepare the Republican party hasn't been able to mount a single popular, well-liked, credible, non-joke candidate.

This has got to be humiliating for anyone who calls themselves a Republican and thinks they are a part of a remotely serious political party.; 12/9/11, 1:32 PM
Anonymous said...: I love to insult Andy R. the most. You look really fucking stupid in that hat, dude.; 12/9/11, 1:34 PM
Ann Althouse said...: Resisting Romney is like back in 2008 when the Dems resisted Hillary. Really, they shouldn't have done that. But it's human nature. We want a competition. Don't tell us it's over before it's begun. Give us the drama! But the drama is a superficial thing. What we need is someone competent to do the work.; 12/9/11, 1:37 PM
Portia said...: Andy R. (would that be Rooney?) the topic is Republican nominees, this is not about Obama.

My guess would be Chris Christie as he seems to have the best street cred.; 12/9/11, 1:39 PM
Anonymous said...: I cannot in good faith support Christie after railing against Palin and Cain and Obama for inexperience.

But I agree that Christie will make a great president one day. Get on the treadmill, dude.; 12/9/11, 1:43 PM
Patrick said...: Let me make this easier: It will not be Pawlenty, Bush or McConnell.

Unfortunately, it also probably won't be Ryan, Christie, Romney, Gingrich or Perry.; 12/9/11, 1:44 PM
Meade said...: "What we need is someone competent to do the work."

FREEMAN HUNT IN 2028; 12/9/11, 1:45 PM
Anonymous said...: What we need is someone competent to do the work.

Yes. This. Social issues and all else need to be cast aside. This election is fundamentally important because the country is at a serious fiscal crossroads for a host of complex reasons. We need to get it fixed. Obama can't do it. Because Obama is a hack.; 12/9/11, 1:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Three years to prepare, Andy? Really? You think that's enough to run for president?

Of course you do. You obviously think that's twice the time needed.

It would be fun to see a complete shakeup, where the first few primaries show so much dissatisfaction with the slate that someone totally new gets dragged into this and becomes a front runner.

But I doubt it. And it won't be anybody predictable.; 12/9/11, 1:46 PM
Methadras said...: Romney is milquetoast. That's his problem. He projects little to no passion in his rhetoric and comes off as the CEO no one likes.; 12/9/11, 1:46 PM
TWM said...: Can't be Jeb as it would just set-up an Obama-Bush II senario. Paul Ryan would be good. Maybe revisit Pawlenty. Christie has to lose 150 pounds. I'm sorry but he just does.; 12/9/11, 1:46 PM
Anonymous said...: an Obama-Bush II senario

This would be a good thing, a great thing. People would reject Obama for Jeb Bush in a landslide.; 12/9/11, 1:49 PM
Andy said...: Three years to prepare, Andy? Really? You think that's enough to run for president?

By "prepare", I meant to decide to run and take the necessary steps. I am operating under the assumption that at the time Obama got elected that there was at least one Republican with the appropriate knowledge and experience to be President and he/she/they would need three years to lay the necessary groundwork to mount a campaign.

My assumption that as of three years ago there was at least one Republican with the appropriate knowledge and experience to be President might have been mistaken though.; 12/9/11, 1:50 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Save us, Priebus!; 12/9/11, 1:50 PM
cubanbob said...: Andy R. said...
Commenters here love to insult Obama, but with three years of time to prepare the Republican party hasn't been able to mount a single popular, well-liked, credible, non-joke candidate.

This has got to be humiliating for anyone who calls themselves a Republican and thinks they are a part of a remotely serious political party.

12/9/11 1:32 PM

Considering Obama is the democrat candidate anyone other than Biden in this nation of 300 million who isn't a prisoner, an insane asylum inmate and is a natural born citizen is infinitely better qualified than Obama.

The real question is when are the democrats going to dump Obozo bin Biden and run a somewhat serious candidate?; 12/9/11, 1:52 PM
edutcher said...: Well, the only ones there who might stand a chance are Ryan and Bush. Nobody's going to support a wuss like T-Paw (or Daniels), and Christie (wisely, IMHO) is auditioning for Veep.

FWIW, I notice a lot of Conservative bloggers warming to Perry, although this may be too little, too late.

In any case, people have been talking brokered convention for about a month.

Andy R. said...

Commenters here love to insult Obama, but with three years of time to prepare the Republican party hasn't been able to mount a single popular, well-liked, credible, non-joke candidate.

Well-liked isn't part of the criteria, but the only joke candidate is going to be primaried by the Hildabeast.; 12/9/11, 1:53 PM
Bob Ellison said...: Someone new? How about Congressman Jeff Flake?; 12/9/11, 1:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Romney is milquetoast. That's his problem. He projects little to no passion

No. This is exactly your problem. There are too many Republicans demanding a fighter. That's the word you use. Fighter.

Why? Executives don't fight. They enact policies to solve problems -- in the case of the United States, very serious problems.

You people who want to have a fight are engaged in a deranged fantasy that is nearly a psychological issue. There is no fight to be had. It's just politics. It's just absurdly grave fiscal problems. We must solve those problems, not fight Obama for some mythical belt or chalice.; 12/9/11, 1:53 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Seven: Pawlenty was an idiot not to stick around.

Pawlenty was running out of money to run a traditional campaign. He had no idea that deficit spending was the new black.

Link: Gingrich has spent $3 for every $2 he has raised.; 12/9/11, 1:59 PM
Anonymous said...: a wuss

Here's another one who wants somebody tough. As if enacting policies means coming to blows, or being super-awesome in debating is going to make this tremendously grave fiscal crisis go away.

What's wrong with you people? Have you lost your common sense? A drop of honey attracts more flies than a gallon of gall. We need someone who can work with people to solve real problems, not somebody who is going to further divide politics. When you say you want a fighter, you are saying -- you can only be saying -- that you want someone who is divisive. How is that person going to enact any policies?

Think, dudes. Be rational. I know you are angry, but you've got to get past it. You've got to deal in political reality.; 12/9/11, 1:59 PM
Joe Schmoe said...: Commenters here love to insult Obama...

Another 'Squirrel!' moment.

I like to insult Obama because his liberal phantasmagoric policies have cratered this country. To borrow your words: "humiliating for anyone who thinks they are part of a serious political party."; 12/9/11, 1:59 PM
Scott M said...: Given that Gingrich missed Missouri's filing deadline for the primary (second-hand knowledge, I've not checked it), wouldn't it be a tad late for someone else to jump into the race as other deadlines are closing in or already passed?; 12/9/11, 2:01 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Althouse: Resisting Romney is like back in 2008 when the Dems resisted Hillary. Really, they shouldn't have done that. But it's human nature. We want a competition. Don't tell us it's over before it's begun. Give us the drama! But the drama is a superficial thing. What we need is someone competent to do the work.

The resistance to Hillary Clinton was driven in part by the same thing that is keeping Jeb Bush out of this race: not wanting another member of the same family running the White House.; 12/9/11, 2:03 PM
Scott M said...: Sorry. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama-Bush just doesn't work for me on any level. No better than Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton.; 12/9/11, 2:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Peter -- You have to agree that Pawlenty could have sat on his front porch and not spent a dime and would have eventually had his month where he was the flavor. Then the money would come.

Also, I agree that this House of Clinton versus House of Bush thing is very off-putting. We are the United States. We do not do royalty. On the plus side, we will have had a four-year interlude. That's something. Right?; 12/9/11, 2:06 PM
garage mahal said...: Instead of being a candidate, Christie would be a great rainmaker.

Cannonbaaaaaalll!; 12/9/11, 2:08 PM
Scott M said...: Cannonbaaaaaalll!

Gold card member.; 12/9/11, 2:11 PM
MadisonMan said...: Mirror, Mirror, on the wall
Who's the most anti-Romneyist of them all?; 12/9/11, 2:11 PM
edutcher said...: Seven Machos said...

Perry can't debate

Actually, he's gotten pretty good marks the last few rounds, so that may be obsolete.

Thing is, GodZero will actually have to debate on his record, not Hopenchange.

a wuss

Here's another one who wants somebody tough. As if enacting policies means coming to blows, or being super-awesome in debating is going to make this tremendously grave fiscal crisis go away.

When the slime machine cranks up for real, anybody without the guts to keep going and not worry about being called raacisst or insensitive, in the mold of Trump (he did make GodZero blink, after all) or Christie, will melt away.

But Seven knows that.; 12/9/11, 2:11 PM
grackle said...: What we need is someone competent to do the work.

But what if the “work” is harmful? Isn’t that the real issue?; 12/9/11, 2:13 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Yes, there were three years for a competent GOP governor (other than Romney) to get ready for this race.

Mark Sanford got distracted. (Or was that part of an Obama plot to eliminate the competition?)

Huntsman burnished his foreign-policy credentials. He also made it damned-near impossible for the Obama campaign to portray him as some sort of wild-eyed, radical conservative. Unfortunately, that's what the base wants this campaign cycle.

Daniels was ready, but he opted out. While many want to blame the media or Obama for the threat that his marital history would be dragged out, I think it's just as likely that Daniels took the pulse of the party and figured that the party wants someone they perceive as a fighter.; 12/9/11, 2:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Ed -- Do you really believe that anyone is going to call Romney a racist or insensitive? Really?

No. You don't. What you want is a candidate who does get charged with all manner of insensitivity so that this candidate can fight the charges. That's what you want. You want the battle, not the victory.

Admit it.; 12/9/11, 2:16 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Seven, I don't think Pawlenty would have ever become flavor-of-the-month. He is a fighter, but he doesn't come across that way on TV.; 12/9/11, 2:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Peter -- I'm not going to dig it up, but Daniels said his wife didn't want him to run for president, so he wasn't going to. Doesn't take a lot of reading between the lines there.; 12/9/11, 2:17 PM
Joe Schmoe said...: A drop of honey attracts more flies than a gallon of gall.

So does shit. And my problem with Romney is that he has smelled of one or the other at different points in his political career.

I'm not for either Romney or Gingrich at this point, but don't blow a gasket at us if we want to kick a few more tires first.

Non sequitur: why do we want to attract flies, anyway?; 12/9/11, 2:20 PM
Issob Morocco said...: How about John Bolton for President.

And this next Presidential election is not about who you vote for, it is who you vote against, Obama.; 12/9/11, 2:26 PM
MadisonMan said...: I'm not going to dig it up, but Daniels said his wife didn't want him to run for president, so he wasn't going to. Doesn't take a lot of reading between the lines there.

That's my recollection too. Weren't they separated for a while, too? Lots of grist for the rumor mill. Who needs that?; 12/9/11, 2:27 PM
Peter Hoh said...: How about taking a look at the guys who have been excluded from the debates: Gary Johnson, Buddy Roemer, and the previously mentioned McCotter.; 12/9/11, 2:30 PM
Christopher in MA said...: "Do you believe that anyone is going to call Romney a racist or insensitive? Really?"

To quote yourself, Seven, you've got to deal in political reality. And if you don't think the DNC slime machine and the enemedia (but I repeat myself) won't throw everything plus the kitchen sink at whomever the GOP nominee is, then you must have been in a coma through McCain's campaign.

Hell, I can smear Romney as a racist - remember, the Mormon church has a long history of opposing interracial marriage, and Romney is as "white-bread" as they come. Of course, he can be tarred as a racist for going up against the Angry Black Sock Monkey.

And "insensitive?" Two words. Bain Capital.

Yes, we are at a financial crossroads and we do need to get it fixed. But we need a fighter who isn't going to let the SCOAMF get away with his usual "Some people say we should let Wall Street do whatever it wants, even if it means your family has to starve. I say that's wrong" crap. Someone who will punch back twice as hard.

You, for some strange reason, want to run McCain's "you have nothing to fear from an Obama presidency, my friends," campaign because of some inchoate fear that the mushy middle will feel sorry for Obama if the GOP dares to slam the bastard.

And if that makes me an I-want-the-battle-not-the-victory partisan, so be it. Because I guarantee you that cringing and asking "mother, may I?" is going to lose.; 12/9/11, 2:31 PM
Peter Hoh said...: John Bolton

If you're going that route, why not Jesse Ventura?; 12/9/11, 2:32 PM
edutcher said...: Seven Machos said...

Ed -- Do you really believe that anyone is going to call Romney a racist or insensitive? Really?

Does the word Mormon ring any bells? Sons of Ham?

The stuff they hit him with last time is only a foretaste of how they'll go after his religion.

And, as for insensitivity, well, he IS a Republican, after all.

To his credit, Milton has been showing some good fight and real forcefulness in the debates, but does that translate to a Christie-like combativeness when things get nasty?; 12/9/11, 2:34 PM
Issob Morocco said...: Peter Hoh, Hoh, Hoh!

Merry Christmas from John Bolton!

May Santa give you comparative skills this Christmas to help you understand the difference of John Bolton from Jesse Ventura.

Cheers!; 12/9/11, 2:45 PM
machine said...: yea, and Karl Rove never slimed anybody...

It goes both ways....it should be easy to beat a sitting President that is a card-carrying communist, voodoo doctor, hates America, doesn't believe in God, cheated to get into Harvard, isn't even actually American born, etc, etc...

Andy is right...it should be easy pickens...; 12/9/11, 2:51 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Issob, yeah, I know they are quite different. One's a lawyer, and the other has won a couple of elections.; 12/9/11, 2:53 PM
Issob Morocco said...: As Jethro Tull so aptly sang, "Nothing Is Easy".; 12/9/11, 2:53 PM
ricpic said...: Deliver us RINOs, deliver us from the clutches of *aargh* conservatives!; 12/9/11, 2:54 PM
Issob Morocco said...: Hoh!

What was the second election he won? Methinks Jesse ran once and won and then retired at the end of his term. Remember he was a part of the Reform Party that was started by Ross Perot and then run by Pat Buchanan later.

He also is a border line 9/11 Truther, claiming the government is withholding info on 9/11 and implying the buildings were destroyed in a way not conducive to fire.

Yeah I see what you mean about this guy and the one who has served his country as an effective Ambassador and has a strong and clear grasp of today's geopolitical map.

Cheers!; 12/9/11, 3:03 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Ventura won a race for mayor before he ran -- and won -- the gubernatorial race in 1998.

I'm not serious about Jesse Ventura. I sure hope you aren't serious about Bolton.

Look, the presidency is not an entry-level position. I would prefer that those running for president have established that they can run something. Being governor shouldn't be a requirement, but it's a damned good think to have on a presidential candidate's resume.

A party ought to expect that someone running for the nomination has already proved that they can win elections.; 12/9/11, 3:09 PM
damikesc said...: Pawlenty was an idiot not to stick around.

Agreed. He'd eventually get a chance as being the new flavor and maybe he would've survived. Who knows?

In 2016, the GOP should just have the candidates do 2-on-2 debates, similar to Cain and Gingrich. Tell the media to F themselves.

Commenters here love to insult Obama, but with three years of time to prepare the Republican party hasn't been able to mount a single popular, well-liked, credible, non-joke candidate.

As opposed to the Preisdent, who is a non-credible, disliked, joke candidate...

No. This is exactly your problem. There are too many Republicans demanding a fighter. That's the word you use. Fighter.

Because we saw McCain just put on the kneepads for Obama in 2008. Why is Obama's religious history unimportant? Why did NOBODY in the media give the first iota of a damn about what Obama did before, say, 2002?

Largely, because McCain made it "off limits".

Forget that. This isn't meant to be a pillow fight. I want a candidate who will say, directly, that Obama's policies are a failure, his narrative of his life is a joke, and that he has been a major negative for the country as a whole.

Will Romney do it? Maybe. Gingrich surely will. I just don't have tons of faith in Newt not losing his mind.

Do you really believe that anyone is going to call Romney a racist or insensitive? Really?

Seven, I'll be stunned if we don't hear stories about how "racist" the Mormon church is and how lily-white all of them are.

Will they say Romney PERSONALLY is a racist? Nah, probably not.

...but, man, look at who he associates with.

If you're going that route, why not Jesse Ventura?

Bolton is a very intelligent man and the best UN Ambassador we had in a long, long time.

Ventura is a, to be honest, rather poor pro wrestler who became a "heel" wrestling announcer before becoming a cliche in that role, getting fired by both major promotions, and then getting elected mayor of a city he moved out of while serving in office.

He also is a border line 9/11 Truther

Drop "borderline". Ventura is an out-and-out Truther.; 12/9/11, 3:15 PM
john said...: Seward had the 1860 nomination almost wrapped up but he couldn't swing a couple of key states and Lincoln won on the 4th convention ballot.

In a primary system Seward would have been the nominee, and if he won the election, Lincoln might have ended up Sec State or Attorney General at best. Seward would have declared war on France instead of on the South, and would have really screwed things up.

Our primary system is so disfunctional, especially with the least important states (IA, NH) having so much sway. I wish we return to those smoke filled back rooms and let convention delegates horse trade, fight, bribe, and extort their way to getting an acceptable nominee who has a chance of winning the election.; 12/9/11, 3:25 PM
gadfly said...: Pawlenty is a Mama's boy -- and when the Mamma of 28 kids got mad at him, he quit.; 12/9/11, 3:28 PM
Joe Schmoe said...: Our primary system is so disfunctional, especially with the least important states (IA, NH) having so much sway.

Don't know about IA, but NH is not a definitive arbiter. They went for Buchanan in 96 and McCain in 00. Obviously you can still get the nomination easily enough without NH delegates.; 12/9/11, 3:47 PM
damikesc said...: In a primary system Seward would have been the nominee, and if he won the election, Lincoln might have ended up Sec State or Attorney General at best.

I doubt it. I doubt he'd be in a Sweard administration at all. They definitely didn't have a ton of respect for him.; 12/9/11, 3:49 PM
Cedarford said...: 7-M - "No. This is exactly your problem. There are too many Republicans demanding a fighter. That's the word you use. Fighter.

Why? Executives don't fight. They enact policies to solve problems -- in the case of the United States, very serious problems.

You people who want to have a fight are engaged in a deranged fantasy that is nearly a psychological issue. There is no fight to be had. It's just politics. It's just absurdly grave fiscal problems. We must solve those problems, not fight Obama for some mythical belt or chalice."
===========
I side with 7-M on this one. As far as I can see, the Republicans have devolved into 1/3rd fiscal conservatives that want a strong executive, 1/3rd angry incoherent old men who want a FIGHTER to lose nobly while telling the Elites other than the Jobs Creators (TM), whats what!
And the last 3rd are romantics of the German right wing romantic sort that want a charismatic leader that excites!!! them.

It is pretty bad when you have the nutballs faction of the Republican Party insisting that getting elected and ably running the country is not as important as "Our Perfessor" dropping zingers on "Their Perfessor" in debate.

The "Change Agent who will Advance Civilization in the face of Cosmic Challenges"
vs.
The soon to be relected "Man whose Election Marked the Day the Planet Began Healing, The Ocean's Rise Stopped".

Presumably after each of the 3 Grand Debates, Newt will be available for "special access" to those offering to buy more than 10,000 of his or Callista's books, movie rights, or want an inside track to Newts Beltway consultant Firm.

And perhaps the Rubes will be happy. "Ol' Newt shure done hit Black Jesus Hard at the 2nd Debate! Our Perfessor is Smarter!"; 12/9/11, 3:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Seven Machos said...

"Executives don't fight. They enact policies to solve problems -- in the case of the United States, very serious problems."

If you're looking for a chief executive for a failing enterprise, you don't want someone who's going to gracefully oversee the company's demise. You want someone who's going to actively shake up things to turn the business around.

The Democrats' ideology is one that actively seeks American decline, and results in it if implemented according to plan. Damn right the GOP should show some backbone and directly attack the 'liberal ratchet' whereby no federal program, once enacted, ever gets cancelled or even actually cut.; 12/9/11, 3:58 PM
cubanbob said...: It goes both ways....it should be easy to beat a sitting President that is a card-carrying communist, voodoo doctor, hates America, doesn't believe in God, cheated to get into Harvard, isn't even actually American born, etc, etc...

Interesting observation since everything you said happens to be true. Who knew that being truthful is sliming someone.; 12/9/11, 4:18 PM
ndspinelli said...: Oh pleeeease. I thought the Mitch Daniels pitch was over.; 12/9/11, 4:19 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Damn right the GOP should show some backbone and directly attack the 'liberal ratchet' whereby no federal program, once enacted, ever gets cancelled or even actually cut.

See Medicare, Part D.; 12/9/11, 4:23 PM
Joe Schmoe said...: As far as I can see, the Republicans have devolved into 1/3rd fiscal conservatives that want a strong executive, 1/3rd angry incoherent old men who want a FIGHTER to lose nobly while telling the Elites other than the Jobs Creators (TM), whats what!
And the last 3rd are romantics of the German right wing romantic sort that want a charismatic leader that excites!!! them.

Thank you Jane Goodall. Good luck pitching your documentary of these exciting findings (soon to be in a peer-reviewed publication, I hope!). I hear Al Gore's crappy network is looking for 'fresh' material like this.; 12/9/11, 5:33 PM
traditionalguy said...: The open door has closed now.

Perry and Romney cannot quit yet with out spending more resources while they hope for a real live bimbo to erupt out of Gingrich's past, not just bimbo ideas from Newt's past that make Ron Paul look normal.

The GOP will have to sink or swim with the New Newt and his old hundred most excellent bimbo ideas.

I really hope that the New Newt can control and antidote any eruption with humility and wisdom.; 12/9/11, 5:36 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Newt doesn't have to worry about a bimbo eruption. He's inoculated himself to that issue.

To borrow from the old Edwin Edwards' quote, Newt only has to be worried about being caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.; 12/9/11, 5:44 PM
Greg Hlatky said...: A brokered convention is the masturbatory fantasy for Washington journalists in an election year.; 12/9/11, 5:45 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Ain't gonna happen.

The Dems might, possibly, go with something like that, but Reps don't. They are not about to nominate anyone who hasn't put in the time and effort. Just isn't fair. From a party that sometimes laughs at the Dems fixation with fairness (while shoveling billions, if not trillions of taxpayer money to their friends, families, and supporters).; 12/9/11, 7:13 PM
Michael said...: One more time:

Where have you gone, Giuliani(o)?
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.; 12/9/11, 7:28 PM
ic said...: Not Timmy who lacks stick-to-itiveness. If he had not piled on Bachmann, he would not have lost support so fast-and-furiously.; 12/9/11, 8:43 PM
Jason said...: The Republicans will get behind whomever get the nomination.

Holding your nose and voting for a Republican who you might not agree on with every position is a superior option to re-electing Obama or voting for a third party candidate, which is basically a vote for Obama.

Would I like to see Paul Ryan or Chris Christie jump in and run? Sure. But then again, one of those guys may end up on the ticket with Romney, who will need a fiscal conservative to run with him IMO to get the support of the Tea Party types.

The key for the GOP is to simply get Obama out of office. Im confident Republicans will vote for Romney, even if they dont like the guy.; 12/9/11, 10:06 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Ha ha, Meade.

"What are the chances that someone not currently running will win the GOP nomination?"

Extremely low. Not going to happen.

Hey, maybe Fred Thompson will hop back in again...; 12/9/11, 10:24 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: I'll accept Newt on a leash:

Keep your whore hidden and do as we say.

If not, I was mulling over Santorum today,...; 12/10/11, 12:16 AM