Can someone explain this logic to me?

[Keystone Phil]

So Santorum is slipping again and we can't stop hearing about a 134th Newt Surge. Why in the name of God would people go back to a candidate that has been a non-factor himself (I say "himself" because he has been a factor for Santorum in other races. If he was out of this, Santorum would have won Michigan and could have made a serious run at a few other states) for well over a month? "Well, we need someone to stop Romney"...so let's waste time building up someone at the back of the pack (again) this late in the game?

I don't understand this and it isn't because my candidate isn't benefitting. It just doesn't make strategic sense. There hasn't been some dramatic shift either. Santorum hasn't totally collapsed/dropped out and Newt hasn't done anything phenomenal. So our realistic shot at an Anti Romney candidate might just be totally derailed on Tuesday because of God only knows what reason. If Santorum loses Tennessee, Newt's 15-20% of the vote will be the major reason. Same thing with Ohio. I think Rick will still take Oklahoma but, again, Newt's cracking of 20% keeps Mitt in the game.

Again, if Santorum was totally out of the game or Newt had some amazing debate performance/news in his favor, this would make sense but neither of those things have happened.

[TJ in Oregon]

Newt represents the political will of the Republican electorate better than any other remaining candidate, so he is given more chances. The moon colonization stuff might have wrecked him (and of course his affairs are a turn-off), but there is still some conservative affinity for him left in there.

[Torie]

Newt's raison d'etre is not to get Santorum nominated, and Santorum's raison d'etre is not to get Newt nominated. I tend to doubt either man really feels that strongly that the other one of them is really that preferable to Mittens. So neither of them, first Rick, and now Newt, had much motivation to just fall on their sword for "the cause."  I think that about sums it up.

[Yank2133]

I don't get it ether.

If you want to stop Mitt so badly, then stop wavering between Santorum and Newt.

[Politico]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWILhrSzw5o&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[Eraserhead]

I think the only people talking about a possible Newt surge on here are JJ and I.

(I'm only about half-serious if that helps.)

[Likely Voter]

The Santorum collapse is explained simply by the fact that he has not shown himself to be a great candidate since his 3 state sweep. He has lost five in a row since, including MI where he was leading in the polls. He said some stupid things that both alienated certain groups (women, Catholicism) but even got some who may agree with him to see him as undisciplined.

If you look at the Gallup tracking since his peak, most of the support has gone to Romney not Gingrich.  I think what is happening is that some of the people who have moved from one anti-Romney to another, have finally thrown in the towel and given in to the inevitable Mitt.

The only way for Rick to stop the tide is a win in OH and at least two other states on Tuesday. He has to show he is a serious candidate.

[TJ in Oregon]

Actually, I think the biggest thing that brought about the Santorum collapse was calling President Obama a snob. I know an awful lot of moderate voters who heard that and pretty much just crossed Santorum off their list of people they might end up voting for in March or in November.

[Torie]

Actually, I think the biggest thing that brought about the Santorum collapse was calling President Obama a snob. I know an awful lot of moderate voters who heard that and pretty much just crossed Santorum off their list of people they might end up voting for in March or in November.

I think it was more about resurrecting all those speeches Rick gave to Catholic audiences about the toxic societal effects of higher education and contraception as an anti-life concept and the disengagement of mainline Protestant churches from the Judeo-Christian ethic, given before he decided to run for President, which Rick then doubled down on. Rick if you are going to give these speeches, keep the darn cameras away is my best advice.

[TJ in Oregon]

Actually, I think the biggest thing that brought about the Santorum collapse was calling President Obama a snob. I know an awful lot of moderate voters who heard that and pretty much just crossed Santorum off their list of people they might end up voting for in March or in November.

I think it was more about resurrecting all those speeches Rick gave to Catholic audiences about the toxic societal effects of higher education and contraception as an anti-life concept and the disengagement of mainline Protestant churches from the Judeo-Christian ethic, given before he decided to run for President, which Rick then doubled down on. Rick if you are going to give these speeches, keep the darn cameras away is my best advice.

Interestingly in my experience, none of my friends (ranging from Atheists to mainline Protestants to Catholics; not many Evangelicals though ) has seemed to care much about that, but the "snob" comment for some reason started an uproar. Perhaps it's just that my friends are mostly very educated people who are somewhat politically indifferent.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wow, what a facile assessment.

Let's see.

AZ - blowout - confirms your assessment.

ME - wasn't going to be a factor there
WA - pulled out 5 delegates (safe Mitt)
MI - Push.
WY - Push.

So out of 5 states - none of which have been lean Santorum, he pulled out 2 pushes. That's not great, but he's certainly a serious candidate.

I really can't see why Mitt fans are stating that Santorum is not a serious candidate? Really? Get back to me how many Republican candidates win 4 states.

[memphis]

The logic is that Paul and Mittens are 100% unacceptable to the majority of Republicans. It's just a process of elimination.

[Keystone Phil]

The logic is that Paul and Mittens are 100% unacceptable to the majority of Republicans. It's just a process of elimination.

Right but the point isn't, "Why don't they go with Romney or Paul?" They want to stop Romney and they don't like Paul/he isn't a factor so why not stick with the candidate that has a shot instead of building up someone from scratch multiple times when he hasn't done anything spectacular recently?

[Sam Spade]

Rick never had any chance of winning, Phil.  Never.  Get used to it.  jmfcst was 100% completely right on this one, and he didn't even know that the delegate rules completely f-k Rick moreso than any other candidate running.  Where jmfcst lost his mind was in the concept that some late entry would win it, but no one is perfect.

What I will tell you is that Rick might have stood some chance of being the Prez nominee in 2016 had he dropped out before/after SC, as he would have maintained good will with the establishment/base had Newt won FL and won the nomination (which was a realistic possibility), and might have maintained good will with the establishment/base had Romney won anyway.  Why do you think Romney dropped out right after February 5 last time around?

As it stands now, Rick stayed at the party much too long, much like he stayed too long in 2005-2006 when his goose was completely cooked.  His actions in 2005-2006 killed him with regard to future political office in PA, now his actions in 2012 will kill him with regard to future political office nationally.  You have to know when to hold them and when to fold them.

[Keystone Phil]

Jmfcst said Santorum would never get consideration from the base. A spectacularly wrong bit of analysis that was only rendered because he personally dislikes Santorum.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I think it's because a core of hardcore GOPers still consider Gingrich as the saviour of the modern party "without him, there would have been no 1994 take-over" etc etc... a pretty polluted stream of consciousness, but a valid one for them.

Santorum has the problem that he's combining Gingrich's talent for provocative statements to energise his base (and to deliberately create a backlash from the centre and left... to keep the energy going "Oh, Rachel Maddow hates what Rick's saying... so it must be the right thing!!!"... with statements that are anathema to not only left, but the centre and some parts of the right.

So when I hear people say "this is just like 2008 and the Hillary and Obama came together and won, all primaries are like this..." It makes me want to pull my hair out. Obama's 'guns and religion comment' was unhelpful, but the majority of people who were offended by that weren't likely to vote for him anyway and it was ONE comment.

What the GOP are doing by not only bringing up social issues... but making extreme positions on social issues the key narrative of the GOP race... is tantamount to political suicide... and Santorum is the main culprit... something the more moderate GOPers are realising now.

What's traditional is that the standard GOP and Dem nominees shift a little more right or left of their natural positions to get true-believer support, but not enough that they can't maneuver back toward the centre to pick off moderates and Independents.

This GOP race, driven by Santorum and the pick-up in positive economic data, has forced the primary narrative so far to the right that returning to the centre is going to be a herculean effort.  

As to the primary question...

Santorum represents a wing of the party that wants to be acknowledged as the heart and soul of the GOP and since he is authentic in his views, he was the perfect counter-point to Romney. However, the more time and media attention he gets, the less of a GE option he appears. The rises and falls of Gingrich are just part of this primary narrative... it doesn't really have anything to do with electability.

[Napoleon]

Gingrich is a good speaker (though he was a poor Speaker).

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Gingrich is a good speaker (though he was a poor Speaker).

Gingrich is good at riling up the base by always accusing someone else, usually the media. "I and we are awesome, but the reason why we're not getting our messages through is because a) the mainstream elite (cannot forget elite) media does not want to report on it or b) the media is distorting what is going on.

And since the right believes the media is against them, forgetting of course that the media likes stories and a three-times married serial philanderer is accusing a loving father of 2 and husband of 20 years of being out of touch with family values is a bloody good story, they eat it up.

[Sam Spade]

Jmfcst said Santorum would never get consideration from the base. A spectacularly wrong bit of analysis that was only rendered because he personally dislikes Santorum.

Let me help you out a bit, Rick... I mean Phil.

When you get consideration from the part of the base in a primary that is not Republican for economic reasons after the primary is already over, that consideration is, in effect, a nullity.  That also does not mean that you got consideration from jmfcst part of the Republican base either, as they are Republicans for economic reasons.

In reality, that part of the base was trying Rick out for a test drive in 2016 since he was around and Mitt showcased him a little, and now, after the crappy engineering and handling, is ditching the car.  Don't think that they'll return next time either.  Which is why Rick should have left much earlier - to take the metaphor further, he would have gotten a chance to redesign and rework the car before the actual customers came. 

I mean, Phil, what does Rick think he is, 1976 Reagan or something, where he could lose early primary after early primary and then arise from the dead? (yes I know he won Iowa by a few votes, but in reality that didn't count for anything - as I said at the time, it was a testament to wasting time in a state where people care about you wasting time in their state when the other candidates are awful)  Sometimes, he appears that arrogant, but I'm not going to make that assumption here.  You know personally enough to act like him, so I'm asking for your insight.

[Keystone Phil]

Gosh...for a candidate that's so arrogant, you think he would have won over a few more of us own...

It's stunning that a moderator can so openly troll.

[Joe Republic]

It's stunning that a moderator can so openly troll.

Which moderator?

[Keystone Phil]

It's stunning that a moderator can so openly troll.

Which moderator?

I was thankfully mistaken that Sam was still in a position of authority here.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Coming from someone who's -4 on Social, this is a laugh.

Opposition to Abortion is hardly against the mainstream. Obama supports abortion and supports making it mandatory for abortion coverage in america.

The only candidate who hasn't come out in support for mandatory health care coverage is Santorum.

Newt is under the delusion that he can 'fix it'. He's perfectly happy to screw young folks over and if it means abortion coverage along the way - who cares? So long as it's got his name on it he's got it.

Romney's already done it.

So that leaves us with exactly one candidate opposed to mandatory coverage. Ugh!

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bias alert.

'in reality' attached to any statement with sour grapes.