Romney Vs. Santorum Vs. Obama

[Econoline]

From Grimmy's link:

When Mitt Romney regaled a Michigan audience this week with childhood memories of a landmark moment in Detroit history, it was a rare instance of emotional candour.

And, perhaps, an even rarer example of time travel.

[rubato]

Ahem.... He said quite a few things in that speech that were over the top - not only that the separation of Church & State should be absolute, but that any financial assistance to Catholic schools was "unconstitutional," and that a persons religious views should have no effect on how the execute their office. Most mainstream conservatives would disagree with Kennedy in all of these areas.
.... "

Which is why Kennedy was a great leader and they are unfit to lead.


yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

Dear God, just listened to Romney's performance in Michigan, complete with Kid "Middle of the road soft" Rock.

Is he aiming for the bland vote?

[Scooter]

Spurt of Santorum becomes a dribble

[Econoline]

I know you've just been waiting to use that line, Scooter...

[Sue U]

Hell, everyone's been using that line.

[Gob]

Michigan awards its 30 delegates by Congressional district, which meant Mr. Santorum would either leave Michigan with nearly the same number as Mr. Romney or only slightly fewer.

[Crackpot]

how you figure?

[Crackpot]

What I find interesting is the notion that if Santorim could have kept his mouth shut he could have won michigan

[Lord Jim]

Someone on Morning Joe a little while ago made the observation that if Santorum had simply taken the speech he made after the Iowa causes, and turned it into a stump speech to campaign with, and used it in his TV ads, he'd have won easily last night...Michigan, with it's demographics and hard hit manufacturing base was tailor made for that sort of blue collar message...and what a great contrast that would have been with Mitt "Some of my best friends own NASCAR teams" Romney....

But instead he had to talk about contraception, "throwing up" when he thinks about the separation of church and state and associate aspiring to go college with snobbery. (I suspect that last one hurt him the most...You could argue that the first two would at least have some appeal to religious evangelicals...Who the hell was the snob thing supposed to appeal to? Who doesn't want their kids to be able to go to college?)

Did some of the things he said get distorted? Yes. Did some of them get taken out of context? Yes. But Santorum went so far off the rails himself in terms of staying on message that he really has no one to blame but himself....

I caught a little of his speech last night. He was talking about how his mother had worked the whole time he was growing, up, and how she was earning more money than his father....

That was the very first time I'd heard that. Why the hell didn't he ever mention that before?

I could not possibly disagree more with whoever it was who said that we've got "great" candidates....

We've got one candidate who seems to have an uncorrectable hardwired incapacity for establishing an empathetic connection with ordinary people no matter how hard he tries...(and the harder he tries, the worse he gets, and the more Thurston Howell type comments roll off his tongue)

A second candidate who is so message discipline challenged that he seems constitutionally incapable of staying on a winning message even when it's handed to him and he's proven he can use it effectively. Instead, he insists on wandering off into dialogues that do nothing but undermine his appeal and hand weapons to an unsympathetic press...

And then of course we have a third candidate who is so personally loathsome that he would lead the party to it's biggest electoral defeat since '64....

And oh yeah, a fourth candidate who's a certifiable lunatic....

That's our "great" field to go up against an incumbent President with a billion dollar campaign war chest...

Frankly I was kind of hoping that Santorum would win last night, not so much because I'm a huge Santorum fan (especially after his performance over the past week) but because it would have increased the odds of somebody else getting in or a brokered convention, which I'm beginning to think may well be our best path to victory....

And things have to be pretty bad for that to look good...

[Long Run]

That's our "great" field to go up against an incumbent President with a billion dollar campaign war chest...

Good summary . . . and yet if unemployment stays high, and take home pay stays stagnant and gas prices stay around $4/gallon, whoever comes out of that weak field will look like a reasonably good alternative come November.

[Crackpot]

unless one of themcan take a reasonable turn twards the middle I highly doubt it.

Lets not forget they've spent the last six months adopting a scorched earth policy in regards to anything centrist.

at this thier only hope is to bring Obama down to their level which I doubt hes stupid enough to try.

[Crackpot]

I wonder when the Republicans will learn that diving hard right on all issues is not the way to win elections.

[Sue U]

I wonder when the Republicans will learn that diving hard right on all issues is not the way to win elections.

See my "We're too dumb" thread.

[dgs49]

The eventual republican candidate will have just as much campaign money (direct and indirect) as Barry. He won't have the unified support of the MSM and the entertainment media, but the money difference will be irrelevant.

About this Republican field: compared to Johnny Mac, any of the top three would be golden. Remember the "enthusiasm" thing I mentioned a while ago? The party with gather around the nominee because he (Romney) is a good candidate and because Barry is a horrible President.

Consider 2008. If HRC had been the nominee she would have won. Not because she was a wonderful candidate or had ideas that resonated with the American voters, but because she was NOT GEORGE BUSH. That's all. Barry won because he never said anything that could be pinned down and he took advantage of a lot of white guilt in addition to being NOT GEORGE BUSH. Neither of those will be possible this time.

The Republican candidate (99% probability it will be Romney) will win because he IS NOT BARRY!

The great thing is that he will not have to shift too far from the rightward drift of the primaries in order to be in step with the majority of the American people on issues such as taxes, immigration, energy, and fiscal responsibility. The people who post here tend to forget that the U.S. is a center-right country, as reflected in the most recent Congressional elections.

[dgs49]

Rick's campaign announced that he got 15 delegates out of Michgan and Romney got 15. Romney outspent him 6-1.

Hmmmm.

[Gob]

Rick's campaign announced that he got 15 delegates out of Michgan and Romney got 15. Romney outspent him 6-1.

Hmmmm.

If one candidate spends 6:1 to his opponent, or 6000:1 or more, what does that matter?

[Grim Reaper]

It means Mr. Romney managed to piss away a lot of money with not much to show for it.

[Gob]

[Long Run]

It means Mr. Romney managed to piss away a lot of money with not much to show for it.

Maybe he should leverage that to show he has something in common with 20-something men.