Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Santorum Hat Trick

This was a big night for former Senator Rick Santorum and unexpected. Congratulations to all the Santorum fans and supporters.

A look at the race to date:

Total Number of Votes After Santorum Hat Trick
ROMNEY 1,177,544
GINGRICH 835,942
SANTORUM 560,949
PAUL 334,254

Total Delagates After Santorum Hat Trick
Romney 106
Gingrich 38
Santorum 22
Paul 20

The next three contest in Maine, Arizona and Michigan will confirm if this is an outlier or a trend. Time will tell. Between now and then the pundits will have a field day analyzing these results ad nauseam.

Kudos to the Secret Service at the Romney event. They shut down what appears to be another "glitter bomb" attempt on the next President of the United States. Job well done!

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

23 comments:

Unknown said...

Very good analysis Pub. Thank you for providing appropriate perspective at this critical juncture.

Terrye said...

It is always good to win and a bummer to lose..but this is turning into a roller coaster primary season..there is no momentum in this race.

Anonymous said...

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates

How come the difference in the delegate count?

Machtyn said...

I suspect the media will be all over this one. Even if Romney had won CO, the big news would have been how Santorum won in two states that Romney wasn't even trying in.

But CO was disappointing. It just doesn't fit the media narrative of the "Mormon" voter, but it should have.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for excellent, fair and balanced reporting.

Romney 2012!

Anonymous said...

Your stats are all true, but this is still spin nonetheless. Santorum has the BIG MO now and Romney has been stopped dead in his tracks. It would be very very likely now that Romney loses MI and possibly even AZ to Santorum. If Romney loses either of those states he should pack his bags and go home. Further, Romney can't beat Santorum with negative ads the way he did Gingrich. Santorum is a good man, unlike Gingrich. The only negative on Santorum is that he is the second coming of GWB. For me that is a big negative, but for the tea partiers it is a small pill to swallow to defeat Romney.

DanL

Ohio JOE said...

"the big news would have been how Santorum won in two states that Romney wasn't even trying in." Yes, neither Mr. Romney nor Mr. Gingrich tried too hard.

Right Wingnut said...

Romney tried plenty hard in Minnesota. I have a pile of mailings from him to prove it....some of them negative attacks against Gingrich and Santorum.

Right Wingnut said...

Santorum may get all 40 delegates in MN when it's all said and done. Delegates to the district conventions were elected last night at the precinct level. Do you really think the same people who gave Rick his big win are going to turn around and award the delegates to Romney? Also, Ron Paul is deluding himself if he thinks he's going to get a lot of delegates out of MN.

By the way, Iowa's caucus results were non-binding as well. Why didn't we hear much about that on caucus night? Hmmm....Now that Bachmann and Perry are out, I suspect that Rick will clean up there too.

Right Wingnut said...

By the way...I'm an alternate delegate to the convention. If I end up going, I can assure you I won't be switching.

Teemu said...

"It would be very very likely now that Romney loses MI and possibly even AZ to Santorum."

I don't think so. Romney won Michigan in 2008 even after having lost the previous major events, Iowa and New Hampshire. Michigan one of the 7 states McCain won in 2000 against GWB, but against Romney he managed to win only 2 of 15 congressional districts even after his New Hampshire momentum. Santorum polled lower than Gingrich in both Arizona and Michigan.

Anonymous said...

RW, thanks for all your 'inside baseball' remarks on this & your previous post. I think this is a great victory for Santorum who is going up against the 'Goliath' Romney. His large organization geared to negative attacks is now beginning to anchor him down.

PN, I don't believe there was any "hat trick" involved here. A pure & simple win likely because the more informed delegates/voters choose Santorum after the self defeating ways of Romney & Gingrich. A Conservative that is well informed would have second thoughts about Romney & his record. He doesn't resonate in the person's conscience as the negative campaign is a complete turn off for a Conservative.

Rather than saying "hat trick" I would say, "anti Romney - Gingrich Blowback." Showing previous vote totals & delegate counts is all well & good, except a lot of that was won prior to the Newt/Mitt bloodbath. Both of these candidates are defective; as such they will be rejected.

Anonymous said...

Lionhead, your remarks about people who vote for Romney being "uninformed" voters are too condescending to be borne. Usually, Pablo is the one guilty of that. I guess you've decided to be that way, as well.

For your information, your condescension is not appreciated. It may be that those of us supporting Romney are the MOST informed voters. Your "information" is wrong. How dare you suggest that those of us who disagree with you are somehow not as informed as you are! Shame on you!

AZ

Doug NYC GOP said...

Here, here, AZ.

Lionhead, it might beehoove you to check that superiority tone at the door.

We can be equally condescending if yo like when discussing issues if you'd like, but that won't improve things much.

Right Wingnut said...

We can be equally condescending if yo like when discussing issues if you'd like...

Doug, Say it isn't so. LOL.

Anonymous said...

"Social Fractals and the Corruption of America."

http://tinyurl.com/6mx5sfw

I hope everyone will take the time to read this great article of what's happening in the US today. Rick Santorum's victory last night may be one of its manifestations. Here are two excerpts:

"The concept of social fractals can be illustrated with a simple example. If the individuals in a family unit are all healthy, thrifty, honest, caring and responsible, then how could that family be dysfunctional, spendthrift, venal and dishonest? It is not possible to aggregate individuals into a family unit and not have that family manifest the self-same characteristics of the individuals. This is the essence of fractals.

If we aggregate healthy, thrifty, honest, caring and responsible families into a community, how can that community not share these same characteristics?

And if we aggregate these communities into a nation, how can that nation not exhibit these same characteristics?

***

We can think of these dynamics as feedback loops: positive feedback is self-reinforcing, negative feedback offers restraint and opposition. From Wikipedia:

Negative feedback is used to describe the act of reversing any discrepancy between desired and actual output. A simple and practical example is a thermostat. Biological examples include regulating body temperature and blood glucose levels.

Positive feedback is feedback in which the system responds so as to increase the magnitude of any particular perturbation, resulting in amplification of the original signal instead of stabilization. Any system where there is a net positive feedback will result in a runaway situation."

The article goes on the examine Mitt Romney's tax return of all things. I think these "social fractals" also pertain to political parties, their members & in particular Conservatives. I posit Mitt Romney is raising a level of negative feedback now in his campaign. He may not be aware of the cognitive disonance he's causing with well informed voters, but it's beginning to reveal itself.

Why does Rick Santorum resonate with the delegate/voters of MN, MO & CO? For exactly the reasons set forth in this article. POSITIVE FEEDBACK.

Teemu said...

Or maybe those caucuses were because of low turnout dominated by "true conservatives", whose definition of "true conservative" is:

Figure out what the (imagined) establishment is up to, and then just go to opposite direction. "Rage against the machine", being against for sake of being against.

Machtyn said...

I would agree on the Positive Feedback loop, but Santorum has been just as negative and dishonest about Romney as Rick Perry was and Fox News / Rush Limbaugh are. (I would compare to Newt, but he's in his own sphere of reality now.)

I've not heard Santorum characterize any of Romney's positions honestly. Even positions that Santorum should be agreeing with - such as removing ObamaCare, reducing government, capping spending - he has mischaracterized Romney's position. It's flat out dishonest, on the verge of lying.

Machtyn said...

Let me add, I do fully agree on the Negative Feedback loop. Romney and Gingrich have damaged each other with the mud-wrastlin' they went through in SC and FL.

Also, over on R412, a good point was made... there is no Conventional Wisdom being followed and there is no sustaining momentum. We have 3 different winners for 7 different voting dates. Where Romney has alternated each date except for FL -> NV.

Anonymous said...

@Teemu, thank you for proving my point. Romney wins FL & NV on low turnout; aka "neutral feedback."

"What do we call conservative, and what do we call liberal, in daily life? A conservative explains behavior spiritually, and personalizes responsibility. In Aristotelian terms, the principle of motion is within us [God]. A liberal, by contrast, explains behavior mechanically, and externalizes responsibility: the principle of motion is outside us [the State]. Thus, in the typical policy debate, a liberal makes excuses for the human agent, and a conservative places blame. The spark of the liberal argument — He didn’t have the same opportunities you did — meets the conservative conceptual firewall: Lots of people start poor, but still find ways to make it." [Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness] (comments in [ ] are mine)

Mark Riebling, "Prospectus For a Critique of Conservative Reason (Sept. 2009)

Your Man Mitt may have CEO (material) quotient, but he does not trigger votes based on "principle of motion" the 'spiritual' quotient. Either a person has that belief system, or not. If voters do not pick it up because their 'fractal' does not match Mitt's 'fractal,' the votes will not come to him. Over the fullness of time it will be revealed.

Teemu said...

" Romney wins FL & NV on low turnout"

MN turnout collapse when compared to 2008 was about the same as for NV, -25%. Colorado turnout went also down. Missouri Primary turnout was down almost -60%, of course there not being delegates was a factor but still.

Now if we calculate turnouts by (total caucus vote)/(McCain 2008 vote in that state), the turnouts for NV,CO and MN were:

NV 8.0%
CO 6.1%
MN 3.7%

Anonymous said...

Teemu, you'll have to find a new dance partner for your dancing on the head of a pin. Notice how you & PN go for 'numbers' when required to start the dance. ;)

You guyz are "whirling Dervishes!"

Terrye said...

Conservative Samizdat has some interesting links on Santorum. I knew that I had heard Santorum say critical things about the Tea Party movement and many of its candidates, but they have a link to an actual video of Santorum trashing the Tea Party, trashing libertarians and defending earmarks.

thecompetentconservative.com/rick-santorum-disses-the-tea-party-says-theyre-redifining-conservatism/


Watch this and imagine the reaction if Mitt Romney had made the same statements..why Mark Levin would have had a stroke.