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.”
Facebook
Twitter
I find it interesting that people who claim to be conservative would vote, or support, Romney. He’s untrustworthy and free of the slightest amount of character. He is,like McCain, a moderate with an “R” next to his name. I wish he had not won last night, so that we would not have to be subjected to the ongoing possibility that he ruins the election for us. How would he do that? See, Romney is actually the guy who has the least likely chance of winning in the general. Because Tea Party Patriots, like myself, had to “settle” for the liberal candidate last time, and now you morons want to put up another liberal guy?! Guess what, many of us will either not vote at all or go 3rd party. Romney 101- he flopped on gay marriage, 2nd ammendment rights, abortion(TWICE) supported the bailouts and cap n trade. Created socialized healthcare for Mass. Which subsidizes abortions with taxpayer $ and you idiots trust this guy to run the country?! We are well and truly screwed. Thanks ou freakin idiots!!!
All of the candidates have baggage, Eric. Can you point to one “true conservative” up there? I guess we’d have to say Ron Paul is the most constitutional of all of them, but he would commit national suicide with his foreign policy. Mitt does have his flaws, but he is the best LEADER of anyone running. He will make Americans feel good about being Americans again, and he will LEAD congress rather than dictate to them. Unless you want another 4 years of Obama, go ahead and keep bashing Mitt. He’s far from McCain, and he knows how to cut cut CUT! That’s what we need right now in the oval office. An individual who can recognize waste and apply our tax dollars towards something more productive.
Poor Eric has been listening to the anti-Romney rhetoric that comes from the DNC and from they hypocritical Republicans. He’s fallen for the crap hook, line and sinker. It leaves me wondering… who does Eric support?!
CLAIM #1: “[Romney] is untrustworthy and free of the slightest amount of character”
- Are you sure you’re not talking about the candidate that cheated on two of his three wives or had to retire from public service after being sanctioned for ethical violations? What’s his name? Oh yes, Newt. Newt owns that characterization, not the guy who has been fair in his business dealings, loyal to his wife and family and ethical as a public servant.
CLAIM #2: “[Romney] is,like McCain, a moderate with an “R” next to his name.”
- Wait, are you talking about the guy that Anne Coulter calls the most conservative candidate that can beat Obama? The same guy that Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, and the rest of the pundits publicly endorsed in the 2008 primaries because he was the “most conservative candidate”?
CLAIM #3: “Romney is actually the guy who has the least likely chance of winning in the general.”
- There is overwhelming objective proof that Romney is the best candidate to take on Obama. Poll after poll after poll show he has the best chance. Newt has the worst chance. And Santorum has a snowball’s chance in hell.
CLAIM #4: “Because Tea Party Patriots, like myself, had to “settle” for the liberal candidate last time…”
- See answer to your claim #2, also, please — if you claim to be a Tea Partier — know that the Tea Party is NOT about social issues… just government and fiscal issues. Romney shrunk the Massachusetts government, he vetoed the Democrat legislature over 800 times, he turned the deficit into a surplus, he lowered unemployment, he did not raise taxes and he’s clearly a free market guy. Newt put down Bain Capital and the Free Market, while supporting cap and trade, TARP, etc. Rick Santorum — who never met a union he doesn’t like — said of the Tea Party, “I’ve got some real concerns about this movement within the Republican Party, and the Tea Party movement, to sort of refashion conservatism and I will vocally and publicly oppose it…”
CLAIM #5: “Romney flopped on gay marriage, 2nd ammendment rights, abortion(TWICE) supported the bailouts and cap n trade.”
- Romney has got more “conservative” over time. You want to call that a negative? He is for man and woman getting married, he strongly supports the 2nd Amendment, he’s against abortion and he did not support the bailouts, nor did he support cap and trade. I think you are confusing him with Newt and Santorum on these issues. Newt supported the Bailouts and Santorum voted for Cap and Trade. Romney would only support the banking bailout if there were consequences and measures put in place to resolve the problem and protect the taxpayer money. The fact is that stuff didn’t happen, so he was post hoc against the banking bailouts. The auto bailouts he opposed and thought they should file for BK.
CLAIM #6: “[Romney] created socialized healthcare for Mass. Which subsidizes abortions with taxpayer $…”
- Romney did not create the system, the Democrat legislature did. But it is a system that 75% of the turds in Massachusetts want and like. It doesn’t affect you or me. The fact that Romney will overturn Obamacare anyway he can only proves Romney is for federalism. Santorum and Newt… they are for big government at the national level. By the way, Romney vetoed the abortion funding… the Democratic legislature overturned his veto. You can’t put that on him… you are being disingenuous.
Wax on, wax off.
>>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.
They purposely omit it because it’s a meaningless stat. There were more contenders in ’08 (partially because the primary was six weeks earlier in the year). And DIFFERENT contenders. They don’t compare the raw numbers because there IS no comparison. I mean, gee, Ron Paul got more than TWICE as many votes as he did last year; by your logic, that means he’ll be King of the Universe in a decade. They don’t compare raw numbers because it wouldn’t make sense to compare them. Other than in Bizarro Timland, I mean.
Here’s the real story of Michigan:
In his native state, Mitt Romney, as in “Romney Revolution!”, came out four percentages ahead of a guy with – in YOUR WORDS – a guy with “no money and no ground game.” Not to mention a raving maniac religious fanatic who wants to set the clock back to Puritan days, has already alienated women and homosexuals and pretty much anyone in favor of non-procreational sex and anyone who doesn’t want to see America turn into Catholica, and who is really best known for having his named Google-bombed into a word for “frothy shit-lube mixture”.
I mean, sure, man, in the end, it’ll be Romney, the lesser of two awfuls, no argument. But for fuck’s sake, you look at those results in Michigan and BRAG?
With a straight face?
>>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.
Incidentally, as we learned on “The Daily Show” earlier this week, Romney himself used to not only do this very thing, but BRAG about it.
So is this a NEW new low, or is it tied for the previous low, set by Romney?
[...] Both Santorum and Gingrich live in Virginia… and both lost their “home state” to Romney. Virginia is also where Santorum was born, so he also lost his “native state.” [...]