I echo Jonathan’s sentiments this morning when he wrote, “for the first time in this long and tortuous race, the end is clearly in sight.” After almost a full year of following an exhausting and dramatic primary race, it’s about time to switch over to the general election.
Of course nobody is encouraging that narrative more than the Romney campaign, which sent out a fundraising email immediately after its victory last night headlined “Time to Close”:
Tonight, we have taken one more step toward restoring the promise of America. And tomorrow we wake up and start again.
This November, we face a defining decision. Our economic freedom will be on the ballot, and I intend to offer the American people a clear choice.
Tonight’s win means we are that much closer to securing the nomination, uniting our party, and taking on President Obama. We are almost there. Help us close strong in the remaining contests by donating $10 today.
At this point, it seems to be a matter of when, not if, Romney secures the nomination. Of course, the major media outlets still are still covering this as if it’s still a horse race.
Despite the solid victory for Romney, who has eeked out more modest wins elsewhere in the Midwest, the contest is unlikely to dramatically shake up the basic geometry of the race. Though Illinois is a major prize for Romney, who will claim the majority of the state’s 54 delegates, the victory does not close the door on Rick Santorum, who will also win a portion of those delegates and has vowed to soldier on.
The Wall Street Journal:
Bolstered by his strong showing Tuesday in the Illinois primary, Mitt Romney has built a commanding lead, but the prize remains elusive. While he is winning in the delegate chase, he isn’t so far ahead that he is assured of entering the party convention this summer with the nomination sewn up.
Meanwhile, the New York Times is hyping the importance of the late-April Pennsylvania primary.
Santorum will fight on until at least late April, but, barring a major shakeup, his chances of winning the nomination have evaporated. He had a chance in Illinois, and a victory there could have showed a resurgence of momentum. But now it looks like he’ll follow the predicted path. He’ll win Louisiana, lose Wisconsin, and then slug it out until Pennsylvania. With each week, the calls for him to bow out gracefully will increase.
The question is, how long will the media shut their eyes to that reality? They have their own incentives for making it seem like the race is more competitive than it actually is. But at some point, it’s going to stretch credulity to keep covering the Santorum campaign as if he still has a serious chance of winning the nomination.
I take it this is some sort of joke? Goodman suggests the Media decide Santorum's campaign is over, not with covering, and should be ignored? She further implies ulterior motives should the Media choose to not ignore poor Santorum. Clear to anyone-except Goodman- is GOP voters are massively disaffected by Romney and staying home in large Primary numbers, while Santorum revitalizes the all-important uber-Christian GOP wing in a manner Romney does not and will never. But, according to Goodman, none of this matters and it now falls to the Media, the so-called Liberal Media I guess, to annoint Romney and close the door to his rivals. What tripe.
What are you talking about? Goodman is flat-out saying that the media is NOT deciding that Santorum's campaign is done. "Of course, the major media outlets still are still covering this as if it’s still a horse race. ……. The question is, how long will the media shut their eyes to that reality? They have their own incentives for making it seem like the race is more competitive than it actually is. But at some point, it’s going to stretch credulity to keep covering the Santorum campaign as if he still has a serious chance of winning the nomination." The media's "ulterior motives" are absurdly obvious- they need news and something to talk about other than how horrible the economy still is and how horrible Obama and his stupid decisions are. The media aren't anointing anyone, especially Romney. The door is about closed to anyone else but Romney and Goodman is merely pointing out the Romney elephant in the living room. n n
What I heard the media saying is that Romney is way ahead and will likely be the GOP nominee. I watched a little of 3 different networks and read two news articles and they are all saying the same thing. The networks are also saying what Feynton Hardy is saying about GOP voters taking Romney like a bitter pill. All of this is true. n nGoodman is complaining that the media should stop covering Santorum. and Feynton Hardy disagrees. n nThere is one rational for Romney's campaign: That he can beat Obama. That now appears unlikely. While Tankrudig may not like it, the economy is recovering and with the choice between Obama and Bush, as Romney by his own admission would be identical to Bush, Obama wins. Hence by using Goodman's logic the media should stop covering the GOP altogether and only focus on Obama ending Bush's wars and recovering from the GOP caused recession. n nOr to put another way, as long as Santorum continues to go forward and and pulling a large number of GOP voters and winning states that unlike Illinois the GOP actually might win in November, the media has no choice but to cover his campaign.
If Santorum is truly energizing conservatives, why aren't they coming out to vote for him? Nothing's stopping them.
Is it me you are mis-quoting? Read me again. I did not say Santorum energizes Conservatives at all. I said: Santorum revitalizes the all-important uber-Christian GOP wing. This truth should be plainly obvious to you. Nearly all of Santorum's appeal is religion-based. I hope you will agree now.
"Nothing's stopping them." n nActually, there IS. What's stopping them is the GOP State election machines. They have worked very hard to keep anyone who has a real chance of beating Romney in the primary off of as many State ballots as possible…as was the case in Virginia, where voters only had a choice between Romney and Ron Paul (no choice at all!), and write in ballots were forbidden by law! n nThe GOP has anointed Romney. It is "his turn" by their "logic", and NOTHING is going to interfere with that decision no matter what Constitutional principles or laws get broken in the process! n nYou need to WAKE THE F__K UP and smell the coffee, friend! The game is RIGGED and if you continue to be too blind to see it, you'll always get what you've always got.
If this turns out to be true, then it is a sad day for America. We will have earned our fate if we can not come up with better leadership than Mitt Romney. He is the epitome of gutter politics. Win or lose, this does not speak well of American society or it's values and principles.
I agree completely and could not have said it better myself.
And didn't – say it better, that is. Look – I don't quite get why some conservatives are so intent on destroying Romney before he is the official nominee. Fenton – are you telling us that you would simply not vote for the Republican candidate in November if it isn't Santorum? And Dangoodbar – right now Romney does better head-to head with Obama than any other Republican, in every poll. So your point is, well, what?
There is a very wild card in this, and it is money. Romney only has the nomination if he can continue to spend $17+ per vote and he is running out of money, just tossing a million of his own fortune into the hopper. n nHe can not sustain this level of spending. Between the SCOTUS hearings on Obamacare and April 15th when the Romneycare fines have to be paid, Romney is going to get a major ding from Romneycare — how much it will hurt him remains to be seen and this will either be Romney's shining moment or his Waterloo and no one knows which it will be. n nRomney is still looking at this like a corporate takeover — he fails to understand that one can win the battle but loose the war, as the US did in Vietnam. He has yet to win the support of the party, all he has done is eliminated everyone else, and that does not build the dedicated groundswell that is necessary to win the general election. Simply being the guy who isn't Obama won't do it. n nRemember too that every delegate that Santorum, Gingrich & Paul get is one vote on both the rules and the campaign platform. Which way will the party go on abortion & gay marriage — Romney is not going to want planks opposing both of those in the platform, his attitude will be that the party can hold its nose and vote for him or vote for Obama and fails to understand that volk may not vote at all. That is how Romney lost the MA Governorship to Deval Patrick. n nNotice that Romney is sending out fundraising emails. Not being able to keep spending $17/vote may be "the major shakeup" that gives whoever is left a chance to win.
It is time for Rick Santorum to leave the field, with the grace I believe him capable of. n nThe mainstream media is positively salivating at the prospect of Rick Santorum on the ticket. Yes, on the ticket. He will be radioactive even as our veep choice. n nUnfair? Of course. That's the world we live in. The object is not to nominate someone who may share your social values. It is to nominate someone who can defeat Obama. n nSantorum has spent far too much time on social issues, and, due to the nature of the mainstream media, has been painted as an extremist. Yes, credit must be given for his candor. And I happen to believe Rick Santorum is right on most social issues. n nBut that's not what most voters want or need to hear about. They want to know that our next president can lead and be effective in the public sphere. The first priority must be fixing our economy and the drowning tsunami wave of deficit spending and the resulting debt that is headed our way. n nThis is Romney's strong point: managing an economy. He's of sterling character, and if he's unexciting for many, isn't this just what we need after the hysteria that surrounded the anointing of Obama, the man who was going to, Canute-like, cause the oceans rise to halt?
I do not buy your premise that Romney "is of sterling character" for one second. Everything he's shown me during this nomination process speaks to exactly the opposite conclusion.
How and when was President Obama to cause any ocean to do anything, or is that figment of imagination common among his hater legion? n nAnd be cognizant Romney would have little choice but to fill a Cabinet with BushCo execs, including that fun loving NeoCon wing eager for more military-industrial conquest and blind to their glaring failure of Iraq.
Two words: Michele Bachmann. n nShe would be the ideal VeeP for Romney — and would be a sign that Romney really does mean what he is saying this time about (a) killing Obamacare and (b) being conservative as Bachmann clearly is identified with both. n nShe is a lot smarter than people think she is — her staff did not do her well — and unlike Santorum, she wasn't campaigning on social issues. Yes she was the foster mother of something like 20-30 at-risk teenaged girls (and that alone is a saintly thing) but she isn't "out there" on the social issue slike Santorium. n nWe shall see….
Another case of "we've got to pass the bill to see what's in it"! No one names a running mate until AFTER they secure the nomination. You're buying a pig in a poke with Romney, and you're dreaming if you think he's "moved" to the right. n nHis own campaign manager admitted that he'll be singing a completely different tune once he secures the nomination! How can you trust someone who literally tells you he's lying to you?!?
Your evidence is a Youtube link? Are you serious? And the rest of your rebuttal is to mention tripe? Who do you think Romney would fill a Cabinet with besides experienced DC GOP insiders? I'm not saying the exact same people, but certainly people closely connected to or working under Bush ex-Cabinet people. Get real, that is how it works.
OK – and what would Santorum do then? Fill it with GOP outsiders? What are you talking about? "BushCo execs", fun-loving NeCons", "military-industrial conquest". You sound like Michael Moore. n As for the youtube link, it is a speech, Fenton. I suppose you could find the same speech elsewhere. Not quite sure what your beef is there. Are you serious?
The best thing to do with Fenton is ignore him. He's an Obama plant.
I know – but I was snowed in yesterday and bored.
So you've encouraged a known troll simply to resolve your own feelings of boredom? Sounds selfish and irresponsible to me.
You crack me up. Anyway, you'll notice that once I reread his posts I realized what he was and sort of gave up on him. Still, I don't understand this troll business. I disagree vehemently with He Who Shall Go Un-named (wink, wink), but why in the world should people not interact with someone with whom they disagree? Or should we "ignore" people who aren't conservative just because this is a conservative site? nAT any rate, I'm not sure how encouraging a "known troll" (Is his picture in the Post Office? Is there a reward for his silencing? You make it sound like a crime.) is "selfish and irresponsible". I'm sitting at a keyboard in my dining room typing up a response to a comment that approximately 16 people in this world will ever read. That in itself may be stupid, but selfish and irresponsible? I think you need to get a life.
Ah Fenton – I just went back an reread your posts more carefully. My mistake – I assumed you were a Santorum supporter. I see now you probably took my Michael Moore comment as a compliment! nMy apologies. Your rabid and incoherent rhetoric makes perfect sense now. You are a hater!
Keep trying kid, keep trying.
Yes, but… nSantorum is losing by an average of 8.8%. SO do we hold out for…Who? A Lazarus Reagan? Paul Ryan – who, by the way, is being criticized vehemently by some conservatives because his budget proposal doesn't solve all of our fiscal problems by tomorrow? Who? nAnd with all due respect, you are unbelievably wrong when you say that "anyone but Obama" is ruinous. If you honestly believe that a President Romney would be the same as or worse than a second Obama term, you really are "Looking4Sanity"! nI'm not sure I understand your end game vs next move point, either. Because if getting rid of O isn't the end game, just the next move, then why can't we replace him with someone who isn't perfect? Wouldn't that just be part of the next move? The problem with your proposal, such as it is, is that I'm afraid you'd lose the next move, thus jeopardizing the end game, which, I presume, is the welfare of the country. nDeal with reality, which in this case is the current crop of Republican candidates. Of those, the polls suggest Romney is the strongest, by far, actually. nLeave it to the "Progressives" (or Progressives, or, as Fenton might spell it, PROGressives) like Fenton_Hardy to live in a dream world where the perfect Messiah-like candidate exists.
I'm sorry you don't see the problem with swapping out one piece of garbage with another. I'm also sorry you don't know how to properly interpret the polling data. You seem to be suffering from the same blindness that afflicts the GOP establishment elites. Throw your lot in with Romney and McCain if you want to. At least we'll know who to blame when the dust settles.
OK – I'll bite. Please, sir, interpret the polling data for stupid little me. You looked at some polls, I looked at those same polls. I also looked at polls showing the leading challenger to be much weaker than Romney. What am I missing? nAnd you keep ripping on Romney, so please tell me who you want to get the nomination!
What are you missing? You're missing the fact that Romney doesn't command the loyalty or respect of the conservative GOP base. Winning “independents” does little good if you can't hold your own base. 40% of this country identify themselves as “strongly conservative” vs. only 20% identifying themselves as “strongly liberal”. You put up a lying, flip flopping “moderate” like Romney and you're going to lose maybe 10 or 15% of the base that you wouldn't lose with either Santorum or Gingrich. If you're extremely lucky, you might get half of the independents with the other half going to the Democrats. That's not enough to make up for the loss of your base.Maybe you should look at what happened to Barry Goldwater in '64. His Libertarian views caused Republicans to vote for Johnson in droves! Goldwater didn't hold the conservative base and he lost in a landslide. Same thing with Herbert Walker Bush, Bob Dole, and John McCain…all of whom were anointed by the establishment GOP elites. Mark my words…one way or another, if Romney is the nominee, you are going to be VERY disappointed. He'll either lose, or he'll win and stab the GOP base in the back. He can't be trusted.
At the risk of ruining this venerable blog by my incredibly corrosive comments, I will comment once more, with tail duly tucked between legs. (I've been reading Commentary for longer than I can remember, and this blog literally since day 1, so spare me your pompous lectures, OK?) nLook, if your analysis is right why the heck is Gingrich wiped out in the same head to head polls in which Romney's average loss is under 5%? And why is Santorum still down 8.8%? And why is Romney tied with Obama in Rasmussen's most recent daily tracker? I'm sorry, but Romney is not Goldwater, and 2012 is not 1964, for reasons too numerous to recount in this space. nFor what it is worth, I think both Romney and Santorum have good shots if nominated. But, what worries me about the latter is that if he is the nominee we will spend the months leading up to the election deeply involved in debates over abortion and birth control and theocracies and gay marriage. Those issues might light up some of the more conservative voters, but I believe they will drive away the very moderates we will need to win in November. I am very conservative – I will vote for whoever gets the nomination. I don't need to be reminded of the danger of a Republican stabbing me in the back. Where we differ, apparently, is that you seem to think that perhaps a second Obama administration would be preferable to a President Romney. In all honesty, I don't get that. I think it is foolish. And whereas you seem to think that my tone somehow threatens the intellectual climate of this blog, your vicious comments which deride a fellow Republican (and therefore fellow Republicans) seem far more dangerous.Read the little that I've actually commented on here, and you'll see that my only negative comment about a candidate was one regarding Gingrich, and that is was far less negative than things you regularly say about Romney (calling him "garbage", for example). nJust sayin', you know.
Why? Because Romney is out-spending the other candidates 10 to 1, and people are generally stupid sheep who believe every lie they hear. Why do you think Goebbels was so successful?
I think you just conceded the argument, L4S. Let's go to the tape. You referenced RCP's polling avg as evidence that Romney was a weak candidate against O. I begged to differ, arguing that the polls showed he was the strongest of the contenders. (In fact, Rasmussen had Romney up – up! – 2 yesterday.) You in turn suggested that those numbers were meaningless because 40% of the population describes itself as "very conservative" and those people will, you believe, simply not vote for Romney – 2008 redux. nBut clearly your analysis is flawed. If 40% of the population is "very conservative" and those folks aren't supporting Romney, then how is he getting 45% in Rasmussen's data? We can assume none of it comes from the "very liberal" 20%, which leaves, let's see, the 45% coming from the remaining 40%. Seems a tad unlikely. nAnd please don't get into the "people are stupid sheep" trap. That is so Progressive, ergo lame. If you really believe that, why participate in the political process? I submit that you don't really believe it – you are just disappointed that the collective opinion seems to be moving away from you. Hopefully, you'll get over that. nAt any rate, a couple of respected conservative senators have just endorsed Romney, Toomey in very warm terms. (Is he stupid? What about DeMint?) I suspect you'll write them off as "Establishment Republicans", but I have to admit, that accusation carries less weight following the "sheeple" argument. nAnd Goebbels? Goodness. You are sowing new depths with that one. Can we swear off Nazi allusions? n
"But clearly your analysis is flawed." n nIt's only "clear" to someone suffering from recto-cranial syndrome such as yourself. n n"We can assume none of it comes from the "very liberal" 20%…" n nWhen you assume, you make an @$$ of u and me. Democrats voting for weak Republican primary candidates has been going on for longer than you have been alive. It's called an "open primary" for a reason. n n"And please don't get into the "people are stupid sheep" trap. " n nPlease! You're the poster boy for that demographic! You make my point for me brilliantly. n n"At any rate, a couple of respected conservative senators have just endorsed Romney," n nWell…whoop dee do! It doesn't take much to sway your opinion, does it? John McCain endorsed him. I think that pretty much says it all. And in case it has escaped your feeble attention…Romney has lost more elections than he's won! Factor that into your equation. n n"Can we swear off Nazi allusions? " n nWould you prefer I reference Walter Lippman? He was just as evil, Goebbels role model, but he was an American. Does that make you feel less uncomfortable?
Well, well. More rational discussion. Where to begin? First, I was citing, specifically, Rasmussen's poll numbers, not primary elections. So I suppose "strong liberals" might be fooling with the polls in some secretly orchestrated effort to get Romney the nomination, but I doubt it. nThe sheeple business – well, your retort is stunning in its brilliance, but my point, sir, was that if you really believe that the voters are stupid, why bother? Personally, I think the American people made a huge mistake in 2008, but in VA and NJ in 2009, in MA in Jan., 2010, nationwide in 2010, and in NY and NV earlier this year I believe we saw the beginnings of a reversal of that mistake. So I have faith in the American people. nAs for Toomey and DeMint (and now Mike Lee and the ACU) – their endorsements didn't sway my opinion – or haven't you noticed that I've been arguing for Romney all along? But more importantly, you missed my point (as usual) – you refer to those who support Romney as stupid. I asked you if that meant they were stupid. I wish, just once, you would answer a question without resorting to sophomoric insults. nThe Nazis vs. Lippman – interesting. You originally brought up the Nazis in the context of Romney's spending, a point I declined to note previously. I find that a strange analogy – the Nazis didn't rely on outspending their opponents 10 to 1 to achieve power, after all. Like much else that you write, that shows evidence of a heated, unthinking, response. nI'm also amused by two things – 1) your guttersniping (oops – that's a Nazi allusion!) after ripping me for being a negative influence on the blog and 2) your apparent willingness to respond to me after you label me as such. After all, I think you suggested I was irresponsible and selfish for replying to a dreaded troll. nLet me ask a question or two – I've asked them before but you have (shockingly) declined to answer. First – who do you want to get the Republican nomination? Second – you stated earlier that getting rid of Obama isn't the endgame. I queried how giving him a second term helps the endgame. You never responded to that. I'm curious if you have an answer, or if that is just another cutesy phrase you spit out without thinking about what it really means. nIt's funny – I suspect you and I probably agree on pretty much every political issue of significance. How did this discussion get so personal? If I take full responsibility for it and apologize, can we both tone it down?
Feel free to do whatever you like, junior. You've already gotten on my bad side. I'm going to have to see a lot better from you before that changes.
In another reply you suggested I was commenting on a site I'd never heard of – Frontpage. For the record, I wasn't. No biggie, but I checked it out, and while searching for what might have led you to believe that read a number of your comments. Suffice it to say, I like the cut of your jib. Like I thought, we agree on pretty much everything.
What?