Tweet
There are some real signs in the polling that the Republican base has finally come around to settling for Mitt Romney. Frank Newport at Gallup finds that the wild swings in the race appear to have ended.
Based on the past historical record, we might have thought that Santorum would have surged back into the lead on the back of the national visibility of his two Southern wins. That is what has happened in the past: A candidate wins a primary or set of primaries, and he moves ahead nationally. Romney moved ahead after New Hampshire. Gingrich moved ahead after South Carolina. Romney moved ahead again after Florida. Santorum moved ahead after wins in Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado. But this time, Santorum was not able to take advantage of his Deep South wins for national gains. We saw hardly a ripple in our national tracking. Romney’s lead remained remarkably constant during this period. As noted, this could be a sign that Romney is gaining more stability in his standing among Republicans nationally. My colleague Lydia Saad will have more on this Tuesday at Gallup.com.
For most of the primary battle the race has been dominated by erratic swings. A non-Romney candidate would shoot into the lead ahead of Mitt Romney because of a primary win or even a single good debate performance, only to have their support collapse just as quickly. In just the past three months Romney has briefly lost the national lead twice only to recover it just as quickly. But it now looks like Romney’s national lead is becoming relatively solid.
The trouble for Romney though is that he still seems unable to break his roughly 38% ceiling which he has bumped into repeatedly but never passed. That is good enough to put him ahead of his three rivals, but it makes it very tough for him to acquire delegates faster given the proportional nature of most contests. It is still going to be a very long slog for Romney to get to 1,144 delegates.
40 Comments
I’m guessing this is because santorum promised a fight on the deadly scurge of mankind known as “the pornography”, men can forgive quite a bit but threaten taking away their porn and you are going to lose them
Mitt’s a very very dull & boring .0001%er who flip-flops & lies a lot, but even worse, wears magic undies.
That said, he’s not quite as batshit insane & unctiously creepy as Rick Santorum, who pretty much wants to outlaw sexytime for everyone (except for him & his little woman).
Newters is just along for the GRIFT and has no chance, except as a spoiler.
And Ron Paul… well, no chance, but hey: thanks for trying.
And so on…
The 1% are behind Mitt bc he is a member of the club. Prof courtesy, etc.
Especially in the South.
All we guys got left is football, booze and porn. Santorum has “touched the third rail” and “screwed the pooch”. If he really wants to commit suicide, just say something negative abour NASCAR.
THis guy really is a moron. Even by republican standards.
So my choice in November will be either the rich dude with all the corporate connections OR the rich dude with all the corporate connections.
I suppose I can write-in “Chuck Connors” because who doesn’t like the idea of Chuck Connors as POTUS?
Do you mean Chuck Norris? I think Connors has been gone for many years.
The 38% number here is misleading. Don’t forget the average of 38% of the popular vote is in a four person race.
The real number that counts is the percent of the delegates Romney has won. He has consistently gotten 56%.
Romney is winning this race yet the narrative continues that he is a loser. This narrative exists because the powers that be that want Obama to be re-elected have already concluded that Romney will be the nominee and want to set up a narrative that will help Obama be re-elected. Those of us on the Left need to be wary of this narrative that ignores the facts of Romney winning, because its goal is to convince us to support Obama.
“That said, he’s not quite as batshit insane & unctiously creepy as Rick Santorum, who pretty much wants to outlaw sexytime for everyone (except for him & his little woman).”
——
Well said except “unctiously”. Is that a word???
I hate people who want to BE in your bedroom. Frankly, he’s not that attractive.
Can’t be. No one wants to see that idiot in the Oval Office.
You mean Norris, right?
I think Chuck Connors would make a really good president. ‘Cept for the “being dead” part.
That freaky pastor who introduced Santorum yesterday was really crazy. Said if you don’t worship Jesus you should get out of the country. I’m sure Frothy agrees with him.
my understand is based on current projections if things hold up Romney will only just barely get 50% of all delegates.
So it’s Mitt, Inc. over Cardinal Santorum?
Can’t wait until the convention. Between the howling of the Tea Party and Paul’s supporters throwing hissy fits, it’s going to be a real fun time.
Chuck Connors is gone? Well….crap.
Ok how about Mike Connors instead? Who doesn’t like the idea of “Mannix” in the White House?
I like the idea of Chuck Connors for POTUS. He’s dead, he couldn’t act and played a mediocre 1st Base. But man that guy could kill people. He’d work that rifle like nobody before or since. Where do I send my contribution?
Speaking of dead, has anyone noticed that the R candidates don’t mention Reagan any more? Strange.
Maybe Bull Connors could be VP. He’d be the perfect follow on to Dick Cheney. A real go-to-guy to secure the Southern Strategy for decades. And can you imagine how he’d handle Iran and North Korea. All of a sudden this race really is about race.
Reagan is way to moderate in this election cycle with those 7 tax increases in 6 yrs. The R’s are so far out in right field they’re hitting the remote on their pickup trucks and crackin’ another brewski before bucklin’ the kids into the car seat. Go Mitt, Go Rick, Go Newt and then Go Away!
But he was a very capable first baseman (I think).
he was the BEST rifleman, I thought he would be a GREAT batman too, alas, he was too old by the time the franchise needed sqaure jaw campy actors for the part
Only one I ever saw who could raise the rifle and shoot with one hand.
just wiki’d chuck connors, great stuff here;
AND he was a great dad while doing it!
Romney looks worn & exhausted. He has no charisma and he says stupid things. i feel like I’m watching someone self-destruct.
Looking at Romeny I see McCain, Kerry, Dole, Mondale & Humphrey, all stooges – he makes it appear we have a choice.
Romney spent the Vietnam war hiding in Paris on a Mormon missionary exemption.
Romney pulled $500 million, out of five different companies, before declaring bankruptcy five times. So, he got rich using a government program that forced others and the community (root word of communism) to absorb his debts. He calls that “creative destruction” (first described in The Communist Manifesto) others may call it just plain communism.
Romney is a stooge candidate just like McCain, Kerry, Dole, Mondale & Humphrey – he makes it appear we have a choice.
Duly noted. I think that it’s because, in the batshit weird whacky world of today’s “GOP voter,” Reagan is, quite frankly, a screaming COMMIE in comparison to the other choices one has. JMHO, of course, but it’s refreshing to step away from the Zombie Reagan coffin humping.
“Speaking of dead, has anyone noticed that the R candidates don’t mention Reagan any more? Strange.”
Reagan governed to the left of Obama.
Mis-spelled unctuously (my mistake)… otherwise, yes, a “real word,” and you can use teh google to look it up!!! See if you agree or not.
Yes, as did Nixon before him.
yep
Maybe Saint o’rum (could not resist) did not get a bump from his last week victories in the South because the powers that be have decided it is enough already and the media barely mentioned it. It seems Mitt got almost as much a buzz from the media from winning Puerto Rico yesterday as Santorum got from his sweep last week.
I think there are very few republican presidents who governed to the right of obama, I might even say bush governed to the left of the big zero in some instances
women
I’m looking forward to it. Screaming, back-stabbing, dirty dealing, burning bridges……God, I miss the good ol’ days in convention history.
Connors had a very respectable .964 fielding average, but only batted .238.
But was The Rifleman. And nobody can take that away from him.
You have really expanded my vocabulary. Thanks.
Jon said: “…but it makes it very tough for him to acquire delegates faster given the proportional nature of most contests. It is still going to be a very long slog for Romney to get to 1,144 delegates.”
————
I sat down, well, really, I was aleady sitting down. But I did the math, twice. I think Romney has a very daunting task to accumulate the 1,144 he needs to win. The last three big primaries are TX, CA, and Utah. IF he does very well in those three he could win. No doubt he’ll win CA and Utah will give him a big victory. But he’s trailing Santorum in Texas.
AS of today, he needs to win 47.4% of ALL the remaining delegates to get the nod outright.
no problem, pardner… and it’s a good way to describe the Santorum, isn’t it???
Santorum doesn’t look like an Italian name. The ending looks like the Latin masculine genitive plural (corruption of “Sanctorum”, “of the saints”?)
Santorum’s father was Italian, from Riva del Garda in the Trentino. Is the name a dialectical form? Ladin (a form of Rhaeto-Romance) is spoken in the far northeast of the Trentino. Could the name be Ladin? There are some Germans in the Trentino, and at least in Germany and Austria some surnames are Latin. Could that explain the name?
Jon, how can that be when he’s consistently earning 56%?
By the way, I wasn’t meaning to imply that you were part of creating that narrative, just that like so many of us you had been affected by it when you thought the 38% was symptomatic of Romney being in trouble.
…and since he’s been consistently getting 56% of the delegates what you’re saying is that Romney wins the nomination even if he does worse than he’s been doing.