From Stark
Mitt Romney may have avoided disaster in the March 7 Super Tuesday primaries, but he also seems to have fallen well short of the decisive cluster of victories he needed to turn his spring and summer campaign into a triumphal march to the convention.
CNN’s John Avion notes that the next primary states are Kansas, Alabama and Mississippi, where Rick Santorum’s social conservatism is likely to play well.
Romney avoided bashing his rivals and exuded his customary self-confidence after the results were in. Reuters reports.
Steven Thomma of McClatchy News Service brushes aside the doubts about Romney, making the case that his superior organization makes him a far more likely nominee than any of his rivals.
Seems to me that the GOP is headed to a Romney-Santorum ticket in November. But I don’t pretend to be an expert.
However it would be nice to witness a Newt vs O debate:
“The president said, we have to be practical; drilling won’t solve it. And then he offered his practical solution. Anybody here remember what it was?
AUDIENCE: Algae!
GINGRICH: Algae.
(LAUGHTER) Algae. I mean, I think this summer, as gas prices keep going up, one of our campaign techniques should be have people go to gas stations with a jar of algae…
(LAUGHTER)
… and say to people, would you rather have the Gingrich solution of drilling and having more oil? Or would you like to try to put this in your gas tank?
(LAUGHTER)
I mean, you can’t — I’m amazed that “Saturday Night Live” hasn’t taken that speech and turned it into a skit. I mean, you can’t make this stuff up….
http://historymusings.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/full-text-campaign-buzz-march-6-2012-newt-gingrichs-super-tuesday-speech-remarks-after-winning-in-gop-republican-presidential-primary-georgia/
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
There are some like me who think that the technique being employed by Mitt to drain the swamp just may end up in poisoning the well:
43% Say New Candidate Should Enter GOP Race; Most Republicans Disagree
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/march_2012/43_say_new_candidate_should_enter_gop_race_most_republicans_disagree
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
I would like to share my official non-serious reaction to the Super-Tuesday news. It is this: http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/MichealJacksonPopcorn.gif
followed by a little bit of this: http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/tumblr_ljh0puClWT1qfkt17.gif
Our dependence on oil isn’t funny. Also, domestic oil drilling at its highest in a generation. Also, talking points are stupid.
Drilling has increased on private and state lands but not in area’s of federal contol, that’s an area presidential policy has direct impact on.
“When Barack Obama assumed the presidency, gas prices were less than $2 a gallon. He proceeded to shut down deep-water drilling in the Gulf, tightened other federal restrictions on petroleum development, and vetoed the Keystone Pipeline. Now, even with Americans driving not a lot more than three years ago and global growth slowing, gas is nearing $4 a gallon….
Increasing North American production would lower U.S. refinery acquisition costs, because U.S. refineries, like others around the world, are built to handle the special characteristics of oil produced by their primary sources supply…
Raising U.S. oil production to its sustainable potential of 10 million barrels a day would cut import costs in half, directly create 1.5 million jobs, and applying administration economic models for stimulus spending, create another 1 million jobs indirectly….
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/mr-president-oil-drilling-could-171950468.html
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
Trixi, our domestic drilling was higher in 2002. That’s a pretty short “generation.”
Source: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS1&f=M
Very neat blog post.Really thank you! Will read on… You can also leave me a feedback on my website http://www.smo4seo.com
I’m not at all impressed with the conventional analysis. I really don’t know how anyone can possibly spin this to be about Romney weakness? If Santorum had won in an Ohio squeaker, would the story be about his supposed weakness? Try this on for size: Romney was behind in both Mich and Ohio and went on to conquer both so-called must-win states. He’s done all he needs to do to win and run a fantastic campaign.
Do I really believe he doesn’t have the momentum just because the horse-race-loving press says so? I believe this coverage has crossed an ethical line into sensationalism. I’m not saying the fat lady should sing, I’m just disgusted with what election coverage has become.
I think that for the supposed front-runner to have to dump millions into a state where his father was the well-loved governor and where he owns a house (Michigan) or where he spent almost all of his campaign time (Ohio) just to barely pull off a win is not a showing of strength.
One thing that Romney is demonstrating this year and Obama did in 2008 is that in politics in America, money can buy you love/votes!
BTW there’s a new book out; ‘The Lost Majority’ that every political junkie should read:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/6/misusing-political-trend-lines/
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
Riley: It’s awfully convenient that you label him a “frontrunner” when just before those two primaries Santorum was leading in EVERY poll. Don’t play with subjective terms like that. They can mean whatever you want them to mean.
“Rick Santorum is looking for the silver medal, Newt Gingrich is enhancing his legacy and Ron Paul wants to hammer home his libertarian ideals. Why quit?
Poor Mitt Romney. He won six of 10 states on Super Tuesday, including hotly contested Ohio. He lengthened his lead in the count of delegates who will actually choose the Republican presidential nominee. But he’s still a long way from claiming victory.
Why? Because there’s no compelling reason for Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul to drop out of the race. Each has a reason to keep fighting at least through April — and maybe all the way to the convention in August.
The elongated GOP primary race is partly a product of new party rules that aimed deliberately to produce a longer campaign, mostly by allowing losing candidates to win more of the delegates through proportional allocation……
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-column-why-romneys-competitors-cont–20120308,0,3392057.column
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
Usually the guy who has been steadily 1st or 2nd in the polls and raised the most money can be considered the front runner. Anyone else disagree that Romney is the front runner?
He is a minority-government style frontrunner.
Like the way that in England, Canada, and many Euro countries that have 3 or more political parties, the country can be run by the guy with 38% support.
So, Romney is front runner only inasmuch as he has the larger plurality. If there was only one non-Romney in the race, that person might have 55% of the support right now.
The front runner so far has been: EBR, everybody but Romney!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!