Althouse: Santorumentum.

February 7, 2012

Santorumentum.

"Rick Santorum had a breakthrough night on Tuesday by winning the Missouri primary and making strong showings in the Minnesota and Colorado caucuses, breathing life into his struggling campaign and slowing Mitt Romney’s march to the Republican presidential nomination."

ADDED: I'm listening to Santorum speaking. He's saying tonight's results show what happens when we don't have one candidate vastly outspending the others, and this is therefore more like what will happen in the fall. That is, Romney's been depending on his money, but in the end, he won't be able to do that.

52 comments:

KCFleming said...: So, did Tim Tebow and Tom Brady vote for him?

Apparently they're registered to vote in MN.; 2/7/12, 9:29 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Pogo.. the visuals are all wrong..

While Obama has the winners at the WH.. we don't want Santorum any were near the... the not winners.

imho; 2/7/12, 9:37 PM
Gideon7 said...: I just left the MN GOP caucus for district 50A (mid-northern suburbs of Twin Cities).

The turnout was about 400. They said it was huge. When asked how many are attending their first caucus about 40% raised their hands.

Based on applause I’d say it was Santorum first, followed by Romney, with Next and Ron Paul in rough a tie for third. I wasn’t able to stay for the final tally.; 2/7/12, 9:42 PM
Revenant said...: What is the point of non-binding caucuses? I don't get it.; 2/7/12, 10:00 PM
bearing said...: I'm in the middle of Minneapolis. Our caucus was much less boisterous than in 2008, when it was standing-room-only and packed with enthusiastic young Ron Paul fans. This time it was quiet, with people sitting around tables on folding chairs chatting amiably about the candidates. Everyone was friendly.

Maybe 100 people total (I had to leave early, I had my kids in tow). I didn't get a sense of which way the whole room went, but my precinct went for Paul followed by Romney.; 2/7/12, 10:00 PM
edutcher said...: Milton was supposed to take CO, lose MN, and it was supposed to be close in MO - that last didn't happen.

As for Santorum, he can't go to November whining at people.

Milton's money would seem to be the better bet.

And, yes, Revenant's point is well-taken.

PS Was MO an open primary?; 2/7/12, 10:07 PM
somefeller said...: Americans are frothing with excitement over Santorum's victory!; 2/7/12, 10:13 PM
Revenant said...: And, yes, Revenant's point is well-taken.

I wasn't making a point, I was actually asking what the point IS.; 2/7/12, 10:18 PM
Anonymous said...: I am with Revenant. I came here hoping to see an answer to this very question, which I assumed someone would bring up.

Also, I am happy that Santorum has replaced Gingrich as the anti-Romney. I don't like Santorum. He's against free trade and he is unlikely to beat Obama. However, Santorum appears quite honorable and authentic. So, big improvement.; 2/7/12, 10:26 PM
Bender said...: The ONLY thing stopping a Santorum or Gingrich or other Not-Romney is a failure of imagination.

Romney has been a big-name candidate for so long (about six years now) that a large proportion of primary voters look at him as the default nominee, despite his routinely hitting that unenthusiastic ceiling of 20-25 percent support.

But if Santorum (or Newt) can get past the tipping point, and people begin to actually imagine him, then a flood of support is waiting to happen.; 2/7/12, 10:27 PM
Bender said...: What is the point of non-binding caucuses? I don't get it.

You mean that you think that people's votes ought to count for something? That voters should be allowed an actual say in who is nominated?

Ha. That's not how things are done anymore. Now the nominee is chosen the first three weeks and voters in the other 45 states are simply told who the nominee is going to be.

People in states having primaries after March will have no say, so why should caucus goers have a real say now?; 2/7/12, 10:32 PM
Anonymous said...: The ONLY thing stopping a Santorum or Gingrich or other Not-Romney is a failure of imagination.

Your nonsense here is usually leaden but this is particularly pitiful. The list of Not-Romneys is getting very, very long. Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich -- it seems like there have been others.

How come all those people failed in imagination? Far more importantly, how many failures before you give up?; 2/7/12, 10:32 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Way to go, Ricky!; 2/7/12, 10:33 PM
Revenant said...: The ONLY thing stopping a Santorum or Gingrich or other Not-Romney is a failure of imagination.

As in "I can't imagine why anyone would think either man is a good choice".; 2/7/12, 10:38 PM
Kirby Olson said...: Santorum is the last conservative standing. What I can't completely keep track of is that so many of these states are proportional rather than winner take all. I wish they were winner take all. Then Iowa would go to Santorum. I'm beginning to want some clarity in this mess, so Republicans can begin to close ranks against BO and the crypto-Marxist phalanx. Santorum can bring Catholicism to bear which means some more clarity on many issues. This would be fun. My Lutheran pastor likes him. Honestly, I haven't paid attention to him at all. He said something funny in New Hampshire. A college student asked him why he was against two men in love. He said why not three men? The student was shocked. Rub a dub dub, three men in a tub. Catholicism at least has some clear answers. I love reading St. Thomas. It might be nice to have someone who belongs to a strong clear traditional faith that isn't just rewarmed Marxism.; 2/7/12, 10:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Kirby -- That's all quite fascinating. But the federal government has no business in the marriage business, pro or con.; 2/7/12, 10:42 PM
Palladian said...: " A college student asked him why he was against two men in love. He said why not three men? The student was shocked. Rub a dub dub, three men in a tub"

Why not? Why the fuck is it your damned business?

We've had enough of Statists, like Obama and Santorum and Newt.; 2/7/12, 10:45 PM
Thorley Winston said...: Santorum is the last conservative standing.

I suppose if the definition of “conservative” is defined only as “socially conservative” then maybe. If it means “spending hawk and pro-free enterprise,” not so much.

While I will have no trouble voting for any of the four as the nominee (although I think it’s going to be Romney) against Obama, Santorum was pretty much the embodiment of Bush 43 on domestic policies (NCLB, Medicare Part D and the whole “compassionate conservatism”) plus earmarks, pro-steel tarriffs and against a national right to work legislation. Hard to see him as more conservative than any of the other three on economic issues but he’d still be an improvement over Obama.; 2/7/12, 11:15 PM
Thorley Winston said...: I just got back from my caucuses (suburbs of St. Paul) – my first time in the precinct so naturally they elected me chair and delegate ;). We had about 22 people which went 8 Santorum, 7 Paul, 5 Gingrich and 2 Romney. Not too pleased with the straw poll results being a Romney supporter but I was happy to have my resolution on health care reform passed and always enjoyed the chance to meet some really nice people.

I think a lot of what’s happening is a rebellion against the idea that Romney should be “inevitable” (I think he will get it and I hope he does but I fully concede an upset is always possible if improbable) and the hope is by making him fight harder for it he will (a) be a stronger candidate in the general election and (b) take more conservative positions (on what I don’t know).; 2/7/12, 11:22 PM
Andy said...: People really don't like Romney. And the Republicans clearly don't want to nominate him. It's almost as if they don't have a choice because all their other candidates are and were jokes.

It's odd though that Romney is so unpopular, considering the only thing he has going for him is his "electability". You might think that there are some conservative princples they could rally behind, but the only way that people ever praise Romney is to say that he can beat Obama.

I guess modern Republicans have a thing for nominating weak unlikable "moderates" so that they can lose to the Democrats. You would think they would have learned after the first three times.

I imagine frothy mixture can't be too happy today since he knows he won't be the nominee and so a couple of primary wins probably can't buoy his spirits after seeing the groundswell of support across the nation in favor of the gay marriage ruling in California.; 2/7/12, 11:28 PM
Bender said...: So --

Santorum has now won FOUR primaries/caucuses.

Romney has won THREE, and Newt has won ONE.

One can only imagine the fear and annoyance in the Romney camp, after six years of begging for people to like him, and thinking that he could just win the nomination by default, that the race is not going to be simply declared "over" and maybe they are not going to be successful in ramming Romney down people's throats after all.; 2/8/12, 12:35 AM
Bender said...: Colorado 2008 --
Romney - 60 percent
McCain - 19 percent

Colorado 2012 --
Santorum - 40 percent
Romney - 35 percent

A precipitous drop from 60 to 35 percent.

OUCH. That's gotta hurt. To be so overwhelmingly REJECTED by those who had previously supported you speaks volumes.

Romney had expected to win Colorado handily. Instead, with this complete crash, they have told him, "go away, we don't want you."; 2/8/12, 12:45 AM
veni vidi vici said...: If "moderate" is defined as fiscally conservative with laissez-faire attitudes regarding government's role as social engineer, then Mitt is the only guy of this bunch that the GOP should nominate if it's serious about actually winning the general.

However, it's long been obvious by the out-party's choice of nominee whether the establishment (an ultimately non-partisan enterprise) wants the incumbent to win. Mondale, Dole, Kerry; a listless dancecard if ever there was one. And it should be fairly obvious to everyone who was conscious at the time that as soon as Obama looked like the nominee over Hillary, the then-most-promising guy to handle the crisis of that moment, Romney, wasn't gonna be running against and beating Hillary; rather, McCain was going to "get his turn" and be sacrificed in favor of the "historic first black president".

This year Romney strikes me as something of a man out of time (NR endorsed him in 08 and excoriates him in 12, go figure), and Gingrich and Santorum are so laden with dross it'll never happen. If Gingrich is nominated, Obama will be "too busy working on the important work of getting Americans back to work" to have any debates and Gingrich will be over before the gate opens. If Santorum is nominated, in a word, Mondale; by which Obama wins a landslide against the decidedly "immoderate" Santorum and the "Democrats' Reagan" label is affixed with permanence.

Even if Santorum is ultimately right about everything, recall Goldwater's "victory" against Johnson and take a lesson therefrom. He's toast from jumpstreet.

My prediction: Obama gets term 2, Republicans get strong countering majorities of both houses, and in '16 the paucity of the Dem bench is laid bare, while the deep and respectable range of "of age" GOP presidential candidates has the potential to make things very interesting, provided they don't restrict the contest to superficiality, and one of them wins in '16 naming one of the other contenders as VP.

wv: "docherp" -- he's got the shot that'll scratch your itch.; 2/8/12, 12:50 AM
yashu said...: Please god, not Santorum.

Better Santorum than Gingrich, yes. But please, just no.

Just what we need to take on Obama in 2012, the anti-sodomy candidate. Who has as little experience to be POTUS as Obama did in 2008.

This too shall pass. I hope.; 2/8/12, 12:54 AM
Bender said...: in '16 the paucity of the Dem bench is laid bare

Since we are so determined to have an oligarchy, whether or not Mitt gets the nomination that daddy could not get, you can be certain that Mario Cuomo's boy Andrew will run (and send spasms of joy among Dems who blissfully remember Mario).; 2/8/12, 12:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Poor Bender. He said all this same shit about Bachmann and Cain and Gingrich and God only knows which others. But surely you've found the true, pure conservative this time. The pro-union, anti-free trade, pork-loving, big-spending conservative.

You are certainly busy moving from candidate to candidate, Bender. If your vote was a vagina, dude, it would need a serious respite and a good cleaning. Have you thought about adding an "ov" between the "d" and "er" in your name?; 2/8/12, 1:01 AM
Bender said...: You really are a complete know-nothing SM. You never cease to amaze at your ability to totally get everything wrong.

I have never supported Bachman, and I became quite annoyed that she played such a stalking horse for Romney.
I was vocally opposed to Cain.
I have said a few nice things about Newt, but have never even come close to endorsing him.

Take your head out of your ass, SM, and maybe next time you be able to pay enough attention to know what is really going on.; 2/8/12, 1:08 AM
crosspatch said...: How many people voted in Minnesota? Maybe 50,000? Even less than that in Colorado.

What I hear loud and clear is that the vast majority of Republicans (apparently 90 percent of them) aren't excited about any of the candidates. And I think their mood is that they don't really care, they are just going to vote for "anybody but Obama".; 2/8/12, 2:33 AM
Revenant said...: Santorum has now won FOUR primaries/caucuses. Romney has won THREE, and Newt has won ONE.

Delegate count prior to tonight's events:

Romney: 91
Gingrich: 29
Santorum: 15

Delegate count after tonight's events:

Romney: 91
Gingrich: 29
Santorum: 15

One can only imagine the fear and annoyance in the Romney camp

One can imagine all sorts of things, I suppose.; 2/8/12, 3:22 AM
Revenant said...: Santorum is the last conservative standing.

I suppose if the definition of “conservative” is defined only as “socially conservative” then maybe.

In my experience that's the only definition most self-identified conservatives ever use.

You can expand government like crazy, enact boatloads of new regulations, run massive deficits, endorse bailouts, cozy up to the enviro-nuts... and still be a "conservative".

But if you're insufficiently anti-gay or anti-abortion, you're a liberal RINO.; 2/8/12, 3:26 AM
MDIJim said...: Republicans are making a HUGE mistake by playing the social issues. 0bama will win handily if the election is about social issues.; 2/8/12, 5:03 AM
Writ Small said...: Watching some Morning Joe right now. Their take is that the recent focus on social issues -- the California gay marriage decision and Obama's anti-Catholic health care policy -- have propelled Santorum to the lead. That's not how I see it.

So much in politics these days revolves around remarkably recent events. Romney's dumb statement about not caring for the very poor was magnified by the media. Gingrich's unhinged Captain Queeg-like press conference following his double losses in Florida and Nevada put off a lot of people.

The main thing people remember Santorum for over the past 10 days is being the voice of reason in the last Florida debate pleading with Mitt and Newt to knock it off with the personal attacks.

Never mind his whiny, angry performances in the prior ten debates. Not everyone follows long arc of the campaign. Very recent events are driving votes.; 2/8/12, 5:39 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: Santorum is going to have to go a long way to convince me that he is viable. He comes across as a social conservative, when we need a fiscal conservative.

Indeed, the last thing that the Republicans may need right now is a social conservative, with Obama's Administration requiring birth control, etc. of Catholic organizations. Someone closer to the middle there would probably pull a lot more votes, with the Dems here potentially alienating a large percentage of voters by pandering to their extremists, as they have here, and hopefully the Republicans don't, at least don't as much.

But, too, I would prefer him to Gingrich. I would much prefer a choice of Romney and Santorum. Gingrich is just too mean, disorganized, not disciplined enough, and would make a horrible President. As someone above noted though, Santorum would be George W. Bush Jr. (or maybe George Bush (45)).; 2/8/12, 5:49 AM
Carnifex said...: I swear some of you people are just down right blinded by your own projection.

cokaygne said "Republicans are making a HUGE mistake by playing the social issues. 0bama will win handily if the election is about social issues."

Do you mean like how BO is against same sex marriage?

Kirby Olsen said "Santorum is the last conservative standing"

No, Santorum is the last ...huh, there's no adjective for Santorum. He's fiscally liberal, but socially conservative. He's the anti-neo-con.(at least as GB defined neo-cons, as socially liberal and fiscally conservative.) And since GB made up the term, he would know.

Newt actually fills the bill for the liberal progressives, though they would be horrified to admit it. Big government, increasing taxes, amnesty for illegals, cap and trade, global warming, Newt is for all these things. Like much of academia, Newt is a Lib-Prog.

And Mittens. What can you say about dear Mitt. That he's a RINO? Sure, you can say that. That the base hates him? Sure, you can say that too. But man!, look at that hair, that smile, that regal bearing! He sure does look like a president. And it's his turn...just like McCain.

Don't even worry about Romneycare. Totally off the table. I'm sure the only people to mention it will be reporters shilling for the One. And that whole appointing liberals to judgeships while governor? It's what he had to work with. Can't blame him. Or for his anti gun stance. Or his raising the debt level in Massachusetts. None of it was his fault.

Just like none of the mess we're in now is Obama's fault.

Hell, they could be brothers in arms, both suffering from the hate engendered by the bitter clingers who refuse to quit looking at their actions, and just look at how good they look.

Ebony, and Ivory, living together in perfect harmony. Side by side on my piano keyboard...(sorry, just getting a little choked up) That's what this country needs dammit, more Mike and Paul, singing together. With Linda thrown in, like a vocal (and i mean this as man, woman , man. nothing racist) oreo cookie, or a grilled cheese sandwich.(shoulda' just used the one...safer)

When I walk to the booth on Super Tuesday, I'll probably fill in with my good ol' #2, Santorum. Because he's Catholic, and so was I once (gotta be a reason to vote for one of these losers). And if he wins fine, if he doesn't, really that's kinda okay too, because it all comes down to "ANYBODY BUT OBAMA" (rather go to hell in my handbasket, as opposed to a federally funded, built by union workers employed by the SEIU, GM designed, handbasket, made with all organically grown materials, from third world countries, paid for by the taxpayer, organically); 2/8/12, 6:00 AM
Yackums said...: The only people bringing up social issues here are the Romneybots, in a transparent attempt to make this contest about anything but what it's really about! The knock on Romney has NEVER been about social issues; it's that he's about as fiscally conservative as Ted Kennedy! Or at best, that he hasn't been able to convincingly demonstrate otherwise.

Santorum might be socially conservative, but that's wholly irrelevant to why people prefer him to Romney. Unless sincerity and lack of phoniness is somehow socially conservative.

Hope you have some serious flame retardant; you'll need it when your straw men get what's coming to them.; 2/8/12, 6:50 AM
rhhardin said...: Arlen Specter.

Santorum's a guy who will sell out the country for congressional loyalty.

Also thanking God for his victory is not humility.

He's another unsavory candidate but better than Obama.; 2/8/12, 7:08 AM
Brian Brown said...: Palladian said...
" A college student asked him why he was against two men in love

Santorum isn't against two men in love.

This "college student" needs a brain.; 2/8/12, 7:32 AM
Bill said...: The entire GOP primary is playing out like a dream for the Democrats. It's almost as if the Republicans are writing off 2012 and shooting for 2016...it's kind of incredible, actually.

Santorum is unelectable, and so is Gingrich. Romney is the only one with even a slim chance of beating Obama (whose poll numbers have been rising), and even that' unlikely.; 2/8/12, 7:59 AM
machine said...: Republicans just aren't sure if they can trust Mitt Romney to really take their Medicare away...; 2/8/12, 8:28 AM
Scott M said...: Santorum is unelectable, and so is Gingrich. Romney is the only one with even a slim chance of beating Obama (whose poll numbers have been rising), and even that' unlikely.

While I don't think Romney is as weak as has been portrayed v. Obama, my concentration is on Congress. Yes, I do believe a second Obama administration, unfettered by re-election constraints, would be awful to suffer through, if for no other reason than the proliferation of mommy pants and let-me-be-clearisms, but Congress is where the fiscal action will take place.

The two main reasons to want to avoid a second Obama term are defense (not just spending, but program cancellation and upgrade priorities) and SCOTUS appointments.; 2/8/12, 8:29 AM
Peter said...: I loathe Santorum, but I would happily sell my soul and burn in hell for all eternity to see him as president rather than a Mormon. Come to think of it, I would happily sell my soul and burn in hell for all eternity to see a Sharia-imposing Islamic fundamentalist as president rather than a Mormon.; 2/8/12, 8:49 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: If Santorum wins the nomination, I will not vote in November. He is as big a buttinsky as Obama and Santorum is openly a whackjob. Obama hides the fact that he is a socialist whackjob.; 2/8/12, 8:57 AM
MadisonMan said...: This too shall pass.

(Munches on more popcorn); 2/8/12, 9:02 AM
David said...: Caucus states, thin turnout.

This is not a huge deal.

Yet.; 2/8/12, 9:13 AM
Thorley Winston said...: The only people bringing up social issues here are the Romneybots, in a transparent attempt to make this contest about anything but what it's really about! The knock on Romney has NEVER been about social issues; it's that he's about as fiscally conservative as Ted Kennedy!

I’d like to get some of whatever it is that you’re smoking, just not as much.; 2/8/12, 9:30 AM
Thorley Winston said...: Caucus states, thin turnout.

This is not a huge deal.

Yet.

Quite right, I was reading my favorite NARN blogs this morning and the consensus seems to be (even among those who caucused for Santorum) that they didn’t like the “inevitability” vibe and thought that by making Romney fight harder for the nomination, that he’d become a stronger candidate for the general election. Not sure I agree with that (resources are finite and Obama’s supposedly banking a billion dollars donated from who knows where) but that’s a far cry from “we hate the frontrunner and will stay home if he’s the nominee.”; 2/8/12, 9:33 AM
Bender said...: Yes, the only thing that the Big Tent Republicans despise more than Obama is a social conservative.

To them, the only good social conservative is the one who shuts the hell up and does what he is told. The only time that they are of any use is election time -- the rest of the time, "f*** you, social conservatives."

And now the Big Tenters -- who infest the Establishment -- are whining because the social cons are on to them and know how to say "f*** you" right back at them.; 2/8/12, 10:35 AM
bgates said...: "He said why not three men?" Why not? Why the fuck is it your damned business?

What happens to the spousal privilege for testifying in court when all members of a criminal organization can marry each other? How is property divided when one of a man's four husbands wants a divorce? When decisions must be made about an incapacitated person's health care, are they made by a majority vote of the spouses, by the senior spouse, or what? If a woman is employed by Publishers' Clearinghouse, are her husband's other wives' kids eligible to enter the sweepstakes?; 2/8/12, 11:12 AM
Revenant said...: He's the anti-neo-con.(at least as GB defined neo-cons, as socially liberal and fiscally conservative.) And since GB made up the term, he would know.

I don't know who "GB" is supposed to be, but the term was invented forty or so years ago to describe former leftists who became anti-communist.

It neither had nor has anything to do with social issues.; 2/8/12, 12:22 PM
Steve Koch said...: Sean Trende wrote an interesting article (if you find regression analysis of the GOP 2012 primary voting interesting):
"A Demographic Divide: Could Evangelicals Block Romney?"

"Harry Enten, an up-and-coming election analyst, observed late Saturday night that you could explain Romney’s vote share in each state just by looking at the evangelical vote in that state’s primary electorate."

Sean Trende's subsequent regression analysis of the vote confirmed Enten's thesis. I hope that Trende will update his analysis to include the results from yesterday to see if it still holds true.

The unanswered question is why Mitt is so much less popular with evangelical GOP voters than non evangelical GOP voters. One obvious possibility is that the Morman religion bothers evangelical GOP voters much more than it bothers non evangelical GOP voters.; 2/8/12, 1:42 PM
Scott M said...: Steve Koch,

I usually love reading your comments here, but I gotta file that one under, "Thank you, Captain Obvious."; 2/8/12, 1:44 PM
Steve Koch said...: I am the master of the obvious.

Believe it or not, a lot of members of the religious right really bristle at the idea that a big part of their disaffection for Mitt is his religion. Just thought I would buttress the argument with a bit of math to see if they found that more persuasive.; 2/8/12, 4:54 PM