September 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« Gamespersonship | Main | Boctok »

Feb 08, 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


You're still wrong. Santorum is the candidate that is most worrisome.

For starters, he is The Chosen One by the evangelical right, right up there with Jesus and pregnant virgins. Plus, Santorum is NOT a member of the Joseph Smith cult like Romney. And while he has a history of scamming taxpayers for personal benefit, he's not a serial adulterer like Gingrich.

Republicans turn a blind eye toward sleaze and corruption among their darlings, but they are loath to allow Satan in the door. What a quandary! Who can beat the darkie in the White House? The cultist? The whoremonger? The fraud?

So many levels of hell, so little time.


I like watching the lines on this graph change over time. It looks like a modern art piece, but notice that Romney is the most consistent, and still on top.


All three candidates are trying to woo the far right take no prisoners bible thumping crowd but noone sings that tune better than Santorum.
The Republican Party does this at its own peril. This is the equivalent of a Democratic candidate winning on a Green Party platform.


That whole rape baby as a woman's "gift" from God may be a tough sell to independent voters.

Andrew Brod

Speaking of bumps along the way to the nomination, I heard a Romney advisor say this morning that it's not unusual for the eventual nominee to lose primaries and caucuses. After all, John McCain lost 19 of them in 2008.

Is that really the example to which they aspire?


Santorum was supposed to win those primaries. The GOP in those states is fundamentalist and far right. Odd, then, that everyone is tagging this as some kind of surprise.

Andrew Brod

If by "everyone" you mean the professional pundits, then yeah, it's odd. It reminds me (nerd alert!) of a martingale process in probability theory, in which all one needs to know about the future of a variable is subsumed in its current value; the past matters not at all. The pundits' opinions are martingale-ish in that they depend almost exclusively on the most recent result. Earlier results seem to matter little.

Now, it's not quite that extreme, of course. When Romney wins something, the pundits do indeed shout "it's inevitable!" When a rival wins, they shout "it might not be inevitable after all!" I haven't heard anyone claim this week that Santorum (mmm, frothy) is suddenly the new front-runner. But neither have I heard talk of Romney's inevitability.



(mmm, frothy)
A tasty froth? Whatever.

Polls released the morning of the vote indicated an outcome different than the one that materialized. Santorum beat expectations in all three states by margins of greater than 10. That is a surprise. Mitt did less well than Ron Paul in Minnesota, again a surprise. Additionally, the fact that Newt was not on the ballot in Missouri and all Newt's votes buttressed Santorum's campaign rather than Romney's speaks to Romney weakness hidden by the division of support for Newt and Romney by the anyone-but-Romney crowd.

Clearly Santorum had momentum that went unregistered in the polls. What was it from? It could have been that silly administration directive that forces churches, hospitals and charities to act against their conscience. It could have been the bruising battle between Newt and Romney in Florida.

Whatever caused Santorum's momentum, it's strength was very much a surprise.

Bill Yaner

I agree with frog (yikes!). The size and sweep of Santorum's victories makes the "Mitt's inevitable" crowd look just a little unsettled today. I knew this would be fun, just didn't know how much fun!

And that supposed realization by conservatives that they could not win without compromise looks a little tattered today as well. Solid conservative club credentials without blemish has remained their credo after all! Onward!!

The comments to this entry are closed.