« | »

Santorum In Second Place In Delegate Race

From the Associated Press:

Santorum jumps into second place in delegate race

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press
February 8, 2012

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Sen. Rick Santorum moved into second place Tuesday in the race for delegates with wins in Republican presidential caucuses in Colorado and Minnesota.

Santorum picked up at least 28 delegates while former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney got at least six.

Sort of. In reality, things are little more complicated, as the article explains.

Overall, Romney has 107 delegates, including endorsements from members of the Republican National Committee who automatically attend the party’s national convention and can support any candidate they choose. Santorum has 45 delegates, Newt Gingrich has 32 and Ron Paul has nine.

The race for delegates is still in the early stages. It will take 1,144 delegates to win the GOP nomination.

Santorum also won the Missouri primary Tuesday, but the party is not awarding any delegates based on the results. Instead, Missouri will award its 52 delegates through a system of caucuses and conventions, starting March 17.

Which must make the people in Missouri who actually took the trouble to vote feel pretty stupid.

Minnesota had 37 delegates up for grabs Tuesday — 13 based on statewide results and 24 based on results in individual congressional districts. Colorado had 33 delegates at stake — 12 based on the statewide vote and 21 based on results in individual congressional districts.

Delegates to the party’s national convention from Minnesota and Colorado are not bound by the results of Tuesday’s caucuses. The caucuses were the first step of a multi-step process to award the delegates

So technically, nobody won any ‘bound’ delegates yesterday.

What a system!

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, February 8th, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

24 Responses to “Santorum In Second Place In Delegate Race”

  1. River0 says:

    This is very good. Santorum is probably the perfect Vice-Presidential candidate for Mitt. He will be the monitor who can keep a wayward Mitt from selling out the Conservative cause. Mitt may have no choice but to choose him after this showing, if he wants to be elected.

    I wish Santorum were presidential material, but he doesn’t seem to inspire voters to act, and vote.

  2. tranquil.night says:

    Give Rick a Chance.

    I wonder if it came to whether Mittens were really in trouble in the count, if the Establishment Party elders would pressure and bribe the delegates from tonight’s “non-binding vote” to change their candidate.

  3. proreason says:

    Let me summarize the case for McRomney:

    1. He isn’t as horrible as the othr guys, particularly Newt, Santorum and Paul.
    2. He doesn’t say stupid stuff, except when he does.
    3. He says he is a conservative, and we have to believe him because he is honest except when he isn’t.
    4. He was a businssman, which is automatically a free-pass to the White House, even though there has only been one othr businessman in the country’s history.
    5. He is the most electable, for some reason that we will understand after he is elected.
    6. He doesn’t have any skeletons in his closet, even though we can’t look until September.
    7. All the cool kids in conservative pravda are solidly in his camp, although they can’t explain why.
    8. Romneycare won’t matter since he says he will kill it, and we should believe him since he rarely lies.
    9. Mickey Mouse could be elected anyway since we will be in the throes of a Depression in November and all the data will prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    All that stuff about never doing anything conservative and running as a liberal and rejected Reagan? Forget that. And forget all that stuff about guns and abortion, and raising taxes and other irrelevant stuff. Look at that hair! And his wife is so good looking. And he says he has never cheated on her. And he’s rich too.

    The other guys are just wierd so we have to pretend that Romney is the kind of politician that we like. Read Ann Coulter to find out why.

    • Melly says:

      Proreason, it seems you have come full circled. You’ve navigated your way thru the putrid waters of politics. What you just posted is very close to what you wrote last March when considering Donald Trump: I’ll vote for who I think can beat the Moron, even if it’s Charles Manson. I can’t imagine anybody more dangerous.

      So I turn into a RINO on this. There isn’t anything I won’t give up for a winner. I view it as morality with a noose around my neck. No amount of lies and deceipt will matter if I can get the noose off. I know most people are searching for the perfect candidate. I think that’s a recipe for disappointment, and possible disaster. Some of those searching for mr or ms perfect might be so disappointed that they stay home. I’M not staying home, even if it’s Ron Paul, the Huckster or that Huntsman guy. I’ll crawl to the polls if they cut my legs off.

    • proreason says:

      Yes, I’ve changed my mind. There’s no honor in being inflexible when the environment changes.

      I can’t stand a smear merchant, and McRomney has demonstrated that he is one of the top smear merchants of all time. I could come to grips with his, shall we say, checkered political history; but I can’t forgive repetitively smearing all of the people he has ever run against.

      There is no chance I will ever vote for him in a primary, and I’m still thinking about whether I can hold in the vomit to vote for him in the general, if he is able to buy and smear his way to the nomination.

      I’ve also come to realize that McMitt’s so-called electability is simply conservative pravda propaganda. He is probably LESS electable than Newt or Santorum. Neither one of them has spent a career becoming rich off the remains of dieing businesses. If you don’t think that will be the most important factor in a Romney Obamy contest, I have a bridge for you at a very good price. And oh yes, there is the Mormon thing as well. Sadly, religion will be ten times the importance of adultery in this election.

  4. mr_bill says:

    Now that he’s gaining against Oromney, how long until some old washed-up has-been RINO hack comes out to tell us that Santorum once kicked Ronald Reagan’s puppy or some other such dreck?

    • proreason says:

      The over/under says that Karl Rove will be smearing Santorum in his subtle way no later than today on Fox.

      You are going to learn that Rick isn’t as conservative as you think, that he is a big union guy, that he has a bad temper, that nobody likes him, and that he is an all-in-all loser and a sore loser to boot. For starters.

    • mr_bill says:

      You’re probably right, Pro. I’m sure there was a late-night session at the Oromney campaign last night to get the anti-Santorum talking points drawn up and passed around.

      I just connected the dots in my head as to why I don’t like Romney much. He reminds me of nerobama. He spends a lot of his time trying to distance himself from his record, he uses other people to do his “dirty work” instead of going on the record himself, and he hopes people will only listen to his words and ignore his actions.

      Aside from his not-so-conservative credentials, I really hadn’t made the connection as to why he was off-putting to me. Maybe there was a subliminal recognition of this in my mind, but it didn’t come out until just now. I don’t know if others feel the same way, but to me, he seems like nerobama-lite.

    • proreason says:

      “He reminds me of nerobama”

      more fuel for that fire:
      – both of them play the above the fray good guy. Behind the scenes, they are both scumbags. In McMitt’s case, he has no ethics when it comes to destroying other people to win, just as he had no ethincs when it came to destroying businesses and lives to make mega-profits for himself.
      – both are totally scripted. McMitt basically says nothing in public except platitudes.
      – both get PO’d at their captive respective pravda’s when they wander off the reservation and ask real questions

      You may not like Gingrich, and if so, one of the reasons is that he speaks his mind a lot, and anybody who does that with regularity will quickly step into the media swamps, because everything anybody says things that haven’t been polled three ways from Sunday is going to be able to be picked apart by he ravenous press jackals. One thing you can be sure about with McMitt, as with obamy, is that he won’t be saying what he really thinks in public. Of course, in little lenin’s case, we knew who he was anyway. In McMitt’s case, does anybody know? He talks conservative and acts liberal. Which is he? Nobody knows.

      So for anybody who wants a candidate as scripted as obamy or Mitt’s hair, McRomney should be your guy.

    • mr_bill says:

      That’s one of my favorite things about Gingrich. He doesn’t focus group every single thing he says, he speaks his mind. While it’s refreshing and makes the candidate more authentic and believable, in my opinion, it can get one in some hot water from time to time. I really don’t mind that so much. I don’t consider it as bad as somebody like nerobama or Romney who occasionally gets caught telling us what they really think.

      Romney is definitely a slick fish. He’s been campaigning for 5 years and hasn’t told us much about where he stands on anything. What’s wrong with this picture? We’ve already had a guy like that and he hasn’t turned out too well. I don’t want another one, even if he has an ‘R’ next to his name.

      I do like that Newt shoots from the hip and doesn’t have to get every word approved by a panel before he says it. He isn’t afraid to put his ideas out there instead of always speaking in the platitudes and generalities that have become the norm in the political arena. I’m liking Santorum more and more. I wrote him off months ago, but I’m glad he’s stuck around. I think if the Romney smear machine had any dirt on Santorum, it would have surfaced by now, which bodes well for his vetting. If I had to vote tomorrow, Santorum would likely get my vote.

    • Chase says:

      Pro, (or anyone else out there)

      I don’t have much time and even less access for reading a lot on line. I know you are not speaking from totally personal viewpoints, but taking on that of the general electorate in their likely reaction to and take-aways from the media monstrosity coming this Summer and Fall.

      My general impression of Mr Romney is that he is personally an honest guy, with common sense, a broad background, and most importantly for me, an understanding and appreciation of and dedication to principles of our American heritage.

      My impression of his time as Gov. is that of one who saw the inevitable in that land of rampant socialism, and put the best face and policies into things he could while there, and so as to not present the flip-flopper reputation which seems most volatile, smiles about his record, whether or not he is actually happy with it.

      My shallow understanding of his time at Bain was that he led in making acquisitions that made companies profitable by cutting off fat and dead-weight.

      Simplistic, giving Mr. Romney the benefit of the doubt, and too optimistic?

      So, my question is, isn’t McRomney’s fat cutting at failing businesses a good thing, that would bode well in cutting and gutting – getting rid of both DoE, SBA, the IRS and dozens of other “fat” and unnecessary organizations? As unpoplular as that might be, and might usher in another progressive in 4 year’s time, isn’t that kind of severe and decisive executive action what this nation needs? Not that he has said anything about that kind of plan, but I would think that background and philosophy would sell well. Again, perhaps I am projecting my wishes onto a pallette that does not exist…

      I take it that you 1) don’t believe serious gov’t-cutting is on his (undisclosed) agenda, 2) that he won’t bring that mindset of people to key roles in the Executive Branch, or, 3) that that message/experience in business has no chance whatsoever getting through to or floating as any kind of positive credential above the tsunami of skewed “reporting” by paid-and-pocketed MSM’s to the entitlement-snarfing self-interested dolts that flood the polls?

      Or, is his brief executive term in the Commonwealth of Taxachussetts so clearly understood as a full- and personal embracing of the inevitability of the Progressive agenda, and he is in it for as “the destined one?”

      I personally coud lean as many here do to Santorum, but not ready to put my money there. I like Newt’s mind, passion, and experience/insider knowledge, again perhaps transferring wishes he would use his experience in Congress to light fires and with savvy and savagery move things through Congress. I don’t think either are electable by the general population.

      A failed senate campaign and hardly more experience than the Token, as well as his endorsement (old-boy back-scratching) endorsement of Specter don’t look very good. Newt has a lot of personal and professional baggage, so I think he is unlikely to gain respect of the needed Independents. Either would make a far better VP than Old Joe.

      I can accept Mitt over any Dhimmie-wit, if only because I think he has a better heart as regarding basic respect of American laws, roles, and our collective longer term American health. I would like to think his independent wealth would harden his spine so that his “legacy” and future as a circuit speaker would be non-existent in his policy-making thought processes. I am probably wishing lots on him, but sensing that you, and most here, would pat me on the back and move gently to remove some rose-colored glasses, and setting me down for a bit of a lecture?

      As time and space permits, let me have it.

    • proreason says:

      Chase, my problem with Romney is that his strategy is, and always has been, to smear his opponents. It’s indisputable.

      To me, that mitigates everything: his business career, his self-declared conservatism, his apparently impeccable personal life.

      If the only way he can win is to smear people, there is something so seriously wrong with the guy that he can’t possibly be the person I want leading the country..

    • ezra says:

      “I don’t have much time and even less access for reading a lot on line.”

      Ha! On balance, online reading definitely makes you dumber, not smarter! Mostly, it’s like a game of telephone played by a bunch of middle schoolers. But there is a lot of credible information out there. Evaluating credibility is the key!

      Seem like you have a good read of the situation. I think the questions you have are the same ones we all have!

      I’d say the white house is starting to look like a long shot, though. So we have the whole “lose with dignity” strategy and down-ballot races to consider, as well.

      On Romney, I found this interview by the authors of a new book about him to be interesting: http://www.npr.org/2012/01/19/145449506/who-exactly-is-the-real-romney . No he is not the second coming, nor is he Satan incarnate. Even as a RINO, I cannot warm up to him, but I give him credit for competing in the primaries with a general election strategy, which is a real juggling act.

    • Chase says:

      Thanks for the responses to my long-winded, wide-open question earlier on Romney. I have not seen the smears Pro is upset about, as over here I don’t have access or time to look at the minutes of the debates or stump speeches. I have seen bits of bites where Romney has seemingly deftly put aside insinuations by others, but my eyes must skip over the negative stuff, and I have not seen the general feeling elsewhere of one-sided and smear-geared speeches.

      I am guessing with Pro’s vehemence over “smears” that there must be something more than meets the eye, some subject, person, topic, behavior or other offense that has been taken from something earlier on….

  5. Reality Bytes says:

    Pro – after Ann’s “get drunk & vote for John McCain” push to get out the vote, what should we expect to inspire what the established elite consider the riff and raff to vote for Romney? (aka the “Clingers” in the DNC)

    Roll one for Romney

    Catch the Buzz – Vote for Romney

    Rasti’s for Romney

    Meth & Mitt. Perfect Together

    Smoke Rope for Romney

    Ritulin makes me OK with Romney

    LOOK Everybody. Stop with projecting who can get elected & who can’t. Have you seen who’s in office?! Fact is, no one talked about how the DNC was frying its chance to win the Whitehouse while Obama was flippin Hillary (literally) during their drawn out fight.

    So, here’s every muke in Washington with an 8:00 table at The Capital Grille telling us Romney is the guy. For What?! His hair? His money? His (I’m out of stuff). Hell, if those were qualifications we’d be voting for Trump!

    NO! The process starts with a bunch of candidates. If you’re a conservative, you vote for the one who is most conservative; not the Max Headroom dude with the timed bytes & feints. That guy was Micele Bachmann, then Newton charmed some of you until & I predicted it, that Creep Factor started in.

    So, now it’s down to Meth, er, ,Mitt, Newton, Rick & Ron. Let me make this simple for you:

    Mitt = Max Headroom & he will short circuit like him just as easy as soon as he is nominated.

    Newt = Dude! really? I mean, I sent him money in 94 & no one would agree with him more but like Rick says we don’t need an idea every minute from the president while Iran is screaming “Fire Scarecrow” to Israel, China’s increasing its military at scary rates, Russia, who knows what they’re up to, oh yeah, and while we’re looking at 20 trillion dollars in debt before the end of the year.

    HELLO!!???

    You are obligated to vote for the most conservative one, If he garners support and momentum then guess what happens, his polls increase, Max Romney will diminish as well as Newt’s & the entire picture changes. And that one is Santorum.

    SAN TOR UM!

    Say it with me

    SAN TOR UM!

    Go ahead now you try it.

    If for nothing else, it’ll piss off the establishment & isn’t that what made Ronald Reagan that much more fun?

    Don’t let me down now!

    • proreason says:

      RB, I pimped for Santorum the day after Newt was smeared out of the Florida win….but i’m still hedging the bet.

      I want to see if Rick can generate the same enthusiasm that Newt can generate. Gingrich got the vote out in SC and Fl, just not enough to overcome the moneyball in the liberal Fl counties that went all in for McMitt.

      But chalk me up as anti-Romney. I won’t have any problem pulling the lever for Rick if he keeps it going.

      And I also still think that having both Newt and Rick in the race isn’t a bad thing. Somehow, we have to overcome the money smear machine, so the more in the race the merrier from my perspective. If Rick wins some states here and Newt some states there, I’m all for that.

    • tranquil.night says:

      “And I also still think that having both Newt and Rick in the race isn’t a bad thing. Somehow, we have to overcome the money smear machine, so the more in the race the merrier from my perspective. If Rick wins some states here and Newt some states there, I’m all for that.”

      Yes, exactly – check out this strategic proposal from Stacy McCain, who has been with Santorum since Cain went down and has made no bones about how he’s not particularly Newt fan: http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/08/how-mitt-could-be-beat

      He thinks Newt and Rick should concentrate their campaign resources on friendly territory and stronghold states (for Newt – the South, Rick – the Rust Belt) and work to deny Romney as many wins and delegates as possible going into Super Tuesday.

      Romney has been playing to win on a divided vote. But if the two remaining Conservative challengers coordinate to maximize the Conservative vote against Romney in each state like what happened in SC, Missouri, Minnesota, Colorado and somewhat Iowa, then Team Cocktail Party is going to have to double it’s expenditures trying to carpet bomb both candidates. Inevitability gets denies and time is bought for either Santorum to survive his vetting (smearing) and secure the coalescence, or Newt the honeybadger to reassert his strengths and support.

  6. JohnMG says:

    ….”Which must make the people in Missouri who actually took the trouble to vote feel pretty stupid…….”

    Well, yes and no, Steve. While it does seem a farcial undertaking, and it did cost us tax payers an estimated $7 million to hold this non-binding vote, it does serve to indicate to our caucus-goers just how the electorate view the candidates.

    On another level……there are people the world over who risk life and limb to exercise their franchise. It is, perhaps, the most sought-after freedom of all……the right to vote. I feel that those who do not vote, using the excuse that it is a meaningless effort, send a message of indifference, and they are ambivalent to the importance of liberty itself.

  7. proreason says:

    Well, now we have the Rove analysis, or in other words, the Republican Ruling Class’ directives to conservative pravda regarding Santorum’s massive insignificant hat trick.

    Virtually every other pundit on the planet was flabbergasted by Santorum’s achievement, since nobody gave them the proper talking points ahead of time, in the remote chance that Santorum would actually win. Of course, most of the Ruling Class sites were largely silent the next day, since it took 24 hours to figure out how to handle the people’s repudiation of McRomney.

    But now we know, and Karl is the messenger, as usual.

    You see, Santorum won because Romney wisely concentrated on the states where he could win delegates, Florida and Nevada. Little Ricky, it turns out, visited the three states he won over 20 times, whereas the mightly Romney only visited a couple of times. So, of course, Little Ricky was able to win some “beauty contests” (or in real-people speak…”elections”) that don’t really count for much. Left unsaid is that the Ruling Class will use treachery to overturn the people’s choices and award the delegates to the mighty Romney.

    Then, the Ruling Class Press Secretary gave the dire warning. Now the “microscope” is on Santorum. So Little Ricky has been warned. There better not be any pictures of him jacking off anywhere, or if there he has destroyed them, he better have iron-clad proof of where he was, and not jacking off, for every minute of his life.

    Because Mightly Romney really wants to win, and he is inevitable….so some evidence of Little Ricky’s unelectability factor(s) must be “revealed” to the public now.

    It looks like the people are going to have to grab the Ruling Class by the throats, put their necks in the guillotines and prime the choppers if we are ever going to get through to them that we don’t want the Smear Merchant as our nominee.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Bring it on.

      Let everyone keep seeing the real Mitt and the Establishment.

      Push it far enough and they’ll unite the dispirit Conservative camps against them and lose.

      Levin is noticing that the uber-principled Libertarian Constitutionalist Ru Paul has been cozying up with McMitt and the big government Republican Establishment. This is correct and why all serious minded Libertarians are long-overdue to get over this Paul fetish. He is not what he says he is whatsoever. He is an operative descending from the Bircher Neo-confederates, funded by many of the people he rants about in his pandering to the kook fringe. And if those emails that Anonymous allegedly hacked are real, then sadly Rand might be even be part of it too.

      The Tea Party were so laudably aggressive in rooting out these creeps from their brand. I didn’t want to understand that these bastards still had any relevance, and especially that they wanted to use Libertarian populism as their shell game.

      Sorry, that’s a little off point, but it’s a factor I keep stressing about especially with each new dark fact that drips out on the Pauls. DeMint, Sarah, and others keep stressing we have to listen and move towards the Libertarians, but IMO the opposite is actually the truth – if RP is who represents their platform.

  8. proreason says:

    The initial smears are these:

    1. some obscure things he said about homosexuality. (I guess the idiots imagine this will deprive Rick of the pro-homosexuality faction of the party)
    2. he isn’t conservative. He just says he is. (from McMitt’s henchmen, laughably. Of course, irony didn’t stop them from playing the Reagan card on Newt)
    3. he’s the laying on of hands type. (ditto point 1)
    4. earmarks (everybody’s 17th most important issue)

    All these are weak tea. The Ruling Class must have been sipping their aperitifs instead of pre-planning for Santorum’s rise, obviously.

    They’ll recover. Ann will come up with something.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Eventually, the ruling class inevitably starts believing in its own omniscience and omnipotence. Thus, they play every hand assuming they will win it as a matter of fact. However, their own arrogance and ignorance works against them and ultimately, they out themselves through some stupid utterance or by virtue of having the spotlight turned on them by several factions that can often be at odds with each other in normal circumstances but band together to exfoliate someone like Rome-ny.

      No one can predict if/when this might happen but it has occurred in the past. It’s clear that the national socialists want to fight against Rome-ny since, in their arrogance, they have assessed they can beat him. In fact, their criteria, in direct diametric to the repugnicans supposition of “electibility” is “most defeatable”. And by that, I’m talking defeat in the sense that they can not only beat the guy in a general election, but also crucify him in the court of public opinion. For the leftist, nothing is quite so savory as making your opponent eat dirt and cry “uncle” because the repugnicans are always perceived (by democrats) as the bullies.

      There’s much to say about that particular misconception but I fear another book-writing episode on my part so I shall refrain in deference to my fellow Sweetness & Lighters.

  9. proreason says:

    hmmm. Rush takes notice:

    “It’s interesting. You know, Romney and his super PAC, whoever the non-Romney is that emerges, that super PAC gets in gear. They tear down Newt, they tear down Herman Cain, they tear down Perry — and turn their sights all of a sudden on “Mr. Nice Guy,” Santorum. You know, Santorum was a nobody up until past month or so and just really this week and so they weren’t running any attack ads. As far as anybody knew, Santorum was a nice guy. Maybe needs to smile a little bit more but nice guy. Then one day everybody wakes up and Santorum wins three primaries, and the next thing we know he’s the biggest wandering shred of human being debris there ever was, from the Romney campaign. Isn’t it amazing how that happens? Santorum now is fighting back against this stuff. He’s not complaining about it.”

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/02/09/santorum_turns_around_romney_attacks

    I was beginning to think I was the only one to observe it.

    Of course, I started ranting about it about a month ago.

    Santorum also points out that McRomney never seems to want to talk about the issues. Why might that be?

  10. artboyusa says:

    She’s at it again, the Golden Tressed One, is. How many weeks in a row has it been now? In her latest love letter to Romney, she asserts that he’s being smeared by the media as a “rich jerk”. I think “rich jerk” is the most acurate, kindly and concise way to describe what Willard is, in the same way I think “deluded fantasist” describes anyone who seriously believes this guy can ever be president but, hey, as the Angel Moroni is my judge and unlike others, I’m not expecting him to give me a job after his widely touted but mostly invisible “electability” kicks in and we all discover his amazing political talent, personal intelligence and rock solid conservative principles, so I say he’s a jerk, a rich jerk and a loser, besides…


« Front Page | To Top
« | »