I find it very interesting that all the Romney-haters out there have been licking their chops at the prospect that Romney might lose Michigan; suggesting if he loses his “home state,” his campaign is over. In fact, Gingrich recently suggested that it takes winning your home state to win the nomination, “Given the chaos of this race, I’m not willing to say anything, but I think it’s extraordinarily important to win your home state.”
Meanwhile, a candidate like Gingrich — who has not won a state since South Carolina a month and a half ago and has managed an average of 13.25% of the votes in every primary since — is still considered to have a viable campaign.
Or Rick Santorum — who won two states a month ago, a third that didn’t matter and tied with Romney in a fourth state; not to mention the fact that he has no money and no ground game; moreover, he relies on the same anti-Republican pro-Obama strategies that the DNC, union Democrats, Michael Moore and the Daily Kos have all employed — is still considered to have a viable campaign.
Or Ron Paul — who has not won any states, and not expected to win any states — is still considered to have a viable campaign.
But Romney won Michigan. And he won Arizona too. As a matter of fact, Romney won Maine two weeks ago. And these states all matter. He’s seen at minimum 49 new delegates to a total of 19 delegates for the rest of the GOP field… combined.
Now that Romney won his “home state,” something interesting happened. The pundits are reaching into their dictionaries and looking up the definition of “home state.” On Fox News, Megyn Kelly debated with her co-anchor covering the election whether Michigan was really Romney’s “home state,” or his “native state.” Apparently, when you’ve already won your home state, it needs more scrutiny in the hopes that it can be redefined so the candidate is saddled with another “must win” scenario. So, Romney winning Michigan wasn’t good enough. Now, Romney must win his home state of Massachusetts, or as I am sure we’ll hear the so-called experts say, “his campaign is over.”
Rick Santorum, from Pennsylvania, was born in Virginia. Ron Paul, from Texas, was born in Pennsylvania. And Newt Gingrich, who currently lives in Virginia (where he is not on the ballot) is from Georgia, and was also born in Pennsylvania. Assuming the same standard is applied to the rest of the GOP field, Virginia, Georgia, Texas and Pennsylvania are “must wins.” Now, I’m not willing to say anything, but I think it’s extraordinarily important to win your home state, native state and the state in which you currently reside.
Another way the anti-Romney crowd is trying to spin his two wins today, is by suggesting that his easy Michigan win was not so easy. Furthermore, he won the state in 2008 by a 9.2 point margin, and in 2012 only a 3.1 point margin.
They purposely omit that Romney got 72,201 more voters in Michigan in 2012 than he did in 2008. Yes, that’s true. More people pulled the level for Romney in 2012 than did in 2008. The fact that the rest of the GOP field is weaker than it was three years ago has caused the the anti-Romney crowd (and the Democrats) to coalesce around his strongest opponent, Santorum, which lowered the margin. But in real numbers, Romney improved.
Michigan in 2008 = Romney had 338,316 votes
Michigan in 2012 = Romney has 410,517 votes
Romney improved his vote tally by 72,201 votes
Not only did Romney increase the number of votes he received in Michigan, he did the same in Arizona too.
Arizona in 2008 = Romney had 186,838 votes
Arizona in 2012 = Romney has 216,782 votes
Romney improved his vote tally by 29,944 votes
In addition, the pundits purposely omit that Romney got 34.5% of the Arizona vote in 2008… and 47.3% in 2012.
Furthermore, if you look at both the states, Romney actually increased his percentage by 6.7 points. All in all, between Arizona and Michigan, Romney increased his real numbers by 102,145 votes.
Even the best spinmeisters can’t make over 100,000 new votes in two states a bad thing for the candidate who leads in the polls, in states won, in popular vote, in delegates, in money and in organization. I suppose the new line will be that if Romney doesn’t win his “home state” of Massachusetts by more than 10 points, or fails to get 51.5% of the vote or gets fewer than 255,000 votes like he did in 2008… then “his campaign is over.”
But what is most striking about Romney’s big day today is that he won in spite of the Democrat electioneering that was fueled by Rick Santorum’s approved robo-calls in conjunction with the DNC, union Democrats, Michael Moore and the Daily Kos… that, quite unapologetically, pandered for the 53% of the Democrat votes he received. We know that Santorum is a pro-union anti-right to work big government Republican, but this was a new low.
But Romney won anyway. He won with women, Catholics, “Conservatives,” younger voters, older voters, better educated voters and higher income voters. If he can replicate what he did in Michigan and Arizona during next week’s Super Tuesday primary election, then he should give reason for the pundits to finally say of the rest of the GOP field that their “campaign is over.”