Santorum "suspends" campaign, Romney a virtual lock in the GOP.

[LSN80]

In a move that all but singled the end of his campaign, Rick Santorum "suspended" his campaign today.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...-out-2012-race_n_1415372.html?ref=mostpopular

Over the past month, Mitt Romney's lead over Senator Santorum had become virtually insurmountable, and Santorum's three year old daughter Bella was hospitalized over this past weekend. It was during this time, according to Santorum, that he decided to end his campaign after much "prayer and thought." Santorum held a 14 minute press conference today, in which he announced his departure from the race.

"Ladies and gentlemen, we made the decision to get into this race around our kitchen table, against all the odds, We made a decision over the weekend that while the presidential race for us is over, and I will suspend my campaign effective today, we are not done fighting."

Santorum's announcement came as somewhat of a surprise to me. Pennsylvania, Santorum's home state, is holding their primary in two weeks, and I assumed he would stay in at least until then. With Santorum out of the way, Mitt Romney is seemingly a lock to win the Republican nomination for President. While Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul both have indicated that they will remain in the race until the Republican convention in August. However, there is a very real possibility that Romney may earn the nomination by virtue of delegates. It takes 1144 delegates to win the nomination, and the current breakdown is as follows:

Mitt Romney: 661
Rick Santorum(withdrawn): 285
Newt Gingrich: 136
Ron Paul: 51

It's an obvious apparent that Gingrich and Paul will not be able to catch Romney. As for Santorum, he won states that the "experts" considered locks for Romney. What you have to consider is that Santorum came out of nowhere. When primaries began, he was seen as being behind not only Romney, Gingrich, Paul and Perry, but Bachman and Cain as well. So when he overtook them, and won states that seemed locks for other candidates, the chances of him winning seemed very real. Santorum isn't the case of a Jon Huntsman who truly had no chance to win.

Agree with him or not, and I certainly don't, there's no denying Santorum was impressive and seemed like a very real possibility to win this thing. He was never the favorite, but he had much of the country believing it was very possible. I don't respect his policies or ideology, but I do respect the showing he put forth in virtually coming out of nowhere. Mitt Romney's camp released the following statement after Santorum officially withdrew from the race:

"Senator Santorum is an able and worthy competitor, and I congratulate him on the campaign he ran. He has proven himself to be an important voice in our party and in the nation. We both recognize that what is most important is putting the failures of the last three years behind us and setting America back on the path to prosperity."

So the focus now shifts to Obama vs Romney, nevermind Newt Gingrich's words that indicate otherwise. Even Santorum's camp has indicated as much, as a spokesman for his camp noted today that the GOP needed Gingrich to step out "a long time ago." But what's most telling is the delegates, and Romney's insurmountable lead over both Gingrich and Paul. Obama and his camp realize this, as they released the following statement:

"It’s no surprise that Mitt Romney finally was able to grind down his opponents under an avalanche of negative ads. But neither he nor his special interest allies will be able to buy the presidency with their negative attacks. The more the American people see of Mitt Romney, the less they like him and the less they trust him. While calling himself the ‘ideal candidate’ for the Tea Party, he has promised to return to the same policies that created the economic crisis and has alienated women, middle class families, and Hispanic Americans. Americans value a President who will fight every day to rebuild an economy in which hard work will pay, responsibility is rewarded and everyone plays by the same rules. And that President is Barack Obama.”

I know it's early, but there's no harm in speculating!

If the election were held tomorrow, would it be Romney or Obama for you? Why?

What role do you see Newt Gingrich playing from here on out?

Would you have preferred Romney or Santorum as the Republican candidate? Why?

If you have any other thoughts on Santorum dropping out, and the landscape of the election from here on out, voice them here!

 

[SalvIsWin]

If the election were held tomorrow, would it be Romney or Obama for you? Why?

What role do you see Newt Gingrich playing from here on out?

Would you have preferred Romney or Santorum as the Republican candidate? Why?

If you have any other thoughts on Santorum dropping out, and the landscape of the election from here on out, voice them here!

I don't see any evidence that Mitt Romney would be a better president than Barack Obama. Mitt Romney is a Republican, and I disagree with Republicans on a lot of issues, especially on social issues where I think they are completely backwards. So if I were an American voting tomorrow for one of these two, I would vote for Obama.

Newt Gingrich is irrelevant at this point, he has already said that Romney is likely to be the nominee, and he's said he would rather go back to doing what he was doing before he got into this GOP nominee race than be a part of Romney's team. Honestly I think he'll drop out eventually as well, but even if he doesn't it makes no difference. Ron Paul might stay in, but like Gingrich he is irrelevant.

Santorum is one of the most illogical and ridiculous characters in Republican politics right now, on par with Sarah Palin, he's an absolute joke. I followed the race very closely for entertainment value, and there was a part of me that was happy when Santorum or Gingrich won a state because it was drama, but ultimately I'm happy that Romney won, he's the best of the worst.

 

[H33LTurn]

While I am glad that Santorum stepped down and that we wont see him try to turn the US into a theocracy I think hes a nice guy deep down and I can respect someone who goes out on a limb to present the morals he upholds despite how unpopular they are.

As for Romney v. Obama I dont regard the president to be much more than powerless figurehead in this day and age that we live in, but the fact remains that Romney has already shown little concern over the lower classes. Albeit I'm not exactly poor, I think we need a president who is willing to tackle the economic gap between classes, not ignore it. Obama has done a fairly good job in my opinion and while things like Obamacare and his signature of the NDAA has gotten people to turn their heads, he seems like the more down to earth individual between the two.

Newt Gingrich will probably play his role in supporting Romney and the Republican party like he said he would do.

I wouldnt care whos facing Obama since at this point the only Republican candidate that has my support, Ron Paul, doesnt look like hes going to win this.

 

[Dagger Dias]

If the election were to be held tomorrow and it came down to either Romney or Obama, then I would vote for Romney as he is the lesser of two evils. I'm not really a fan of either, but I don't want another four years of Obama. The "change" that he brought us was awful and there will only be more if he wins. I do not know much about Santorum, although I probably would have supported him if he were running against Obama instead of Romney. I'd do some research before the election to find out if I truly will feel comfortable voting for him or not. He's out of the race now though and Romney looks like he will get the nomination.

I'd much rather it be Paul. I've been a supporter of his ever since the last round of primaries back in 2008. He would be the best choice of all if he got the opportunity to run in the main election. Unfortunately that would take a miracle and a ridiculously large amount of delegates for him to catch up to Romney, let alone win, at this point. Gingrich would have been awful though and I'd even take Obama again over him. Despite my dislike of Romney, he's a far better choice in my opinion than Obama and certainly better than Gingrich. It will be interesting to see what happens between now and the actual election.

 

[Davi323]

If the election were held tomorrow, would it be Romney or Obama for you? Why?

Between the two of them, I would have to go with Mitt Romney, not only is he much closer to matching my political beliefs, but the man has proven leadership skills beyond being a community organizer. He has run businesses, the Olympics and a state.

What role do you see Newt Gingrich playing from here on out?

Now that Santorum is gone, I think Gingrich's role just went kaput. I thought the only reason he held on as long as he did is because he was planning on brokering a deal with Romney at the GOP convention, to trade his delegates in exchange for a cabinet position of some sort, on the assumption that Romney wouldn't quite get the number of delegates to lock the nomination up. I think Gingrich was planning on using his delegates as leverage. With Santorum out of the race, he loses all of that leverage, as Romney will certainly get more than enough delegates to prevent any dispute about his candidacy at all. Newt Gingrich was in the GOP race specifically to gain a cabinet position, he was never seriously running for President himself. He was simply using the race as a means to an end.

Would you have preferred Romney or Santorum as the Republican candidate? Why?

Romney, by far. (but only because I can't have Herman Cain). Santorum never proved to me that he has leadership capabilities. It might be a bit simplistic to put it in these terms, but Romney is a go-getter, someone who gets shit done, while Santorum seems like he is more of a follower than a leader himself. Romney is the quarterback, Santorum is like the punter.

I also think that Romney has a much better chance at getting elected. I am referring to the William F. Buckley rule, that you don't support the most conservative candidate, you support the most conservative candidate that can be elected. There is a difference. Santorum would not have stood a snowball's chance in hell in the general election. Election choices have to be as pragmatic as they are ideological. Romney can beat Obama, Santorum couldn't.

 

[Mustang Sally]

It's kind of discouraging, isn't it? If Obama wins a second term, the Republicans will continue to fight absolutely everything he does. Partisan politics has existed since the birth of America, but it seems to have reached the point that even if one party proposes a measure that would clearly benefit the country, the opposing party will oppose is strictly on the basis that it was the other party's initiative. Hard to get anything done.

At the same time, would Romney have an easier time of it if he wins? If his party holds both houses of Congress, maybe he would. Yet, it was under the last eight years of Republican leadership that we got into this mess in the first place (wars, deficits).

One interesting aspect will be the battle over Obamacare. While Republicans oppose it, Romney himself enacted a plan as governor of Massachusetts that was quite similar to it. He'd be best off hoping the Supreme Court will strike it down before he's accused by the Dems of contradictions involved in coming out against it.

Whoever wins the presidency, I wonder if either one can make a real difference. It's politics as usual.

 

[Davi323]

One interesting aspect will be the battle over Obamacare. While Republicans oppose it, Romney himself enacted a plan as governor of Massachusetts that was quite similar to it. He'd be best off hoping the Supreme Court will strike it down before he's accused by the Dems of contradictions involved in coming out against it.

This is actually a fairly easy argument for Romney to make:

Step 1: point out that the GOP criticism of Obamacare is it's constitutionality, or lack thereof. Then point out that all rights not given to the Federal Government are reserved for the states. IE, it is 100% constitutional for an individual state to enact a state level health care system, but it is not constitutional for the Federal government to do the same, because the US Constitution limits the Federal government but does not limit state governments.

Step 2: point out that due to the heavy partisan nature of the Massachusetts legislature, the Massachusetts version would have been passed regardless. They had the votes to override any veto, so at least he was able to put in a few of his own ideas in there before it became law, rather than have it an entirely 100% democratic endeavor. To put it simply, he couldn't stop it, but he could alter it's course a little.

 

[SalvIsWin]

This is actually a fairly easy argument for Romney to make:

Step 1: point out that the GOP criticism of Obamacare is it's constitutionality, or lack thereof. Then point out that all rights not given to the Federal Government are reserved for the states. IE, it is 100% constitutional for an individual state to enact a state level health care system, but it is not constitutional for the Federal government to do the same, because the US Constitution limits the Federal government but does not limit state governments.

Step 2: point out that due to the heavy partisan nature of the Massachusetts legislature, the Massachusetts version would have been passed regardless. They had the votes to override any veto, so at least he was able to put in a few of his own ideas in there before it became law, rather than have it an entirely 100% democratic endeavor. To put it simply, he couldn't stop it, but he could alter it's course a little.

There are a lot of people that don't find Romney's argument very compelling. The best counter-attack to Obama's health care plan, in my opinion, is to just say it's an awful idea for reasons X, Y, and Z - which some Republicans have done - they've said universal health care is bad. Romney's argument is, I like and support universal health care, but only if the State's decide to do it. I think if Romney is going to make an argument like that, he needs to clearly explain why it's important that the State decides to have universal health care.

I think a lot of people see it is: Is universal health care superior to the system we have now, or isn't it? Either it is, in which case some people will support Obama for trying to enact it for every State; it isn't, in which case why does Mitt Romney support it in his State; or it's better in some States, but not in others, in which case Romney needs to say why that is - which he hasn't.

 

[Peoples_Champ]

If the election were held tomorrow, would it be Romney or Obama for you? Why?

What role do you see Newt Gingrich playing from here on out?

Would you have preferred Romney or Santorum as the Republican candidate? Why?

If you have any other thoughts on Santorum dropping out, and the landscape of the election from here on out, voice them here!

Romney or Obama? As disappointed as I am with Obama, it's tough not to vote for him. His bailout to the car companies worked, he's brought the troops back from Iraq, he killed Bin Laden and he has been moderately (slightly?) successful in most areas of his administration. He hasn't had any real mistakes or screw ups and he has the incumbent advantage. Romney's image has taken a beating recently amongst vicious GOP competitors and it turned me from being neutral to the guy to disliking him. I'm nowhere near a multi-millionare, so I can't relate to him just like I feel he can't realte to me. Oh yeah, and I was living in Detroit when he wrote the article about letting Detroit go bankrupt. So I'm not a fan.

Newt's role? I really don't know. He could be a useful tool in a Romney administration. He's sharp and a great orator, but he has tremendous baggage. Head of a major department would be ideal for Newt, and probably a good idea for Romney considering the open wounds in the party. But if Obama wins, there's always Fox News.

Romney or Santorum? I think Santorum is more electable than Romney, but his rhetoric at the beginning of the campaign was ridiculous. He didn't appeal to independents and left-leaners that didn't like Obama, he oversold to the conservative base. With that, he positioned himself too far to the right to appeal to independents and more liberal members of the Party. To be honest, both of these candidates are horrible. Someone like Bobby Jindal, Ricky Rubio or Jeb Bush should have ran. They would have swept Obama away in the Mid-West and Deep South.

 

[Davi323]

There are a lot of people that don't find Romney's argument very compelling. The best counter-attack to Obama's health care plan, in my opinion, is to just say it's an awful idea for reasons X, Y, and Z - which some Republicans have done - they've said universal health care is bad.

Romney's argument is, I like and support universal health care, but only if the State's decide to do it. I think if Romney is going to make an argument like that, he needs to clearly explain why it's important that the State decides to have universal health care.

Because of Romney's unique situation, he can't use the emotional strategy, he has to use the legal one. Just saying it's an awful idea cannot work for Romney like it would with another GOP candidate. The fact that he signed it into law in Massachusetts, whether he actually wanted to or not, prevents him from using that argument. Instead, he has to point to the key differences between Massachusetts doing it and the US Government doing it. Romney has little choice but to use the Constitutional argument against it rather than the emotional argument.

Romney's position will be, because it has to be, that the Federal government does not have the power granted to it to enact it. State governments do. Someone could be 100% behind an individual mandate at the state level and be 100% opposed to the same at the Federal level, and be entirely consistent for that reason. What is legal for one is not necessarily legal for the other. That's the argument Romney has to make. He has to say that regardless of whether you think it's a good idea or not, Massachusetts had the constitutional authority to enact it, while the Federal government does not.

Essentially, it's like someone who fully endorses the right of adults to drink alcoholic beverages being opposed to teens doing the same. It's not hypocritical, since it's legal for one, not for the other.

I think a lot of people see it is: Is universal health care superior to the system we have now, or isn't it? Either it is, in which case some people will support Obama for trying to enact it for every State; it isn't, in which case why does Mitt Romney support it in his State; or it's better in some States, but not in others, in which case Romney needs to say why that is - which he hasn't.

The problem is not whether people think it's a good idea or not...even the best idea in the world could be unconstitutional, and would/should be struck down as bad law. It's either constitutional or it's not, regardless of if you think its a great idea or a terrible one. If it's unconstitutional, it has to be struck down, period.

I would LOVE for the US government to make a law that says people named David (or variations of) get 1,000,000,000 dollars every year on their birthday, because people named David are awesome. Fantastic idea, brilliant even...but, chances are it would be entirely unconstitutional using some equal protection claim or something. So even though I would benefit greatly if that idea ever came to law, I would necessarily have to agree that it would make a terrible law.

 

[SalvIsWin]

Because of Romney's unique situation, he can't use the emotional strategy, he has to use the legal one. Just saying it's an awful idea cannot work for Romney like it would with another GOP candidate. The fact that he signed it into law in Massachusetts, whether he actually wanted to or not, prevents him from using that argument. Instead, he has to point to the key differences between Massachusetts doing it and the US Government doing it. Romney has little choice but to use the Constitutional argument against it rather than the emotional argument.

Romney's position will be, because it has to be, that the Federal government does not have the power granted to it to enact it. State governments do. Someone could be 100% behind an individual mandate at the state level and be 100% opposed to the same at the Federal level, and be entirely consistent for that reason. What is legal for one is not necessarily legal for the other. That's the argument Romney has to make. He has to say that regardless of whether you think it's a good idea or not, Massachusetts had the constitutional authority to enact it, while the Federal government does not.

Essentially, it's like someone who fully endorses the right of adults to drink alcoholic beverages being opposed to teens doing the same. It's not hypocritical, since it's legal for one, not for the other.



The problem is not whether people think it's a good idea or not...even the best idea in the world could be unconstitutional, and would/should be struck down as bad law. It's either constitutional or it's not, regardless of if you think its a great idea or a terrible one. If it's unconstitutional, it has to be struck down, period.

I would LOVE for the US government to make a law that says people named David (or variations of) get 1,000,000,000 dollars every year on their birthday, because people named David are awesome. Fantastic idea, brilliant even...but, chances are it would be entirely unconstitutional using some equal protection claim or something. So even though I would benefit greatly if that idea ever came to law, I would necessarily have to agree that it would make a terrible law.

I'm not even saying it's hypocritical, or that he should use a different line of attack. I think we both agree that Romney has to use the hand he's been dealt, I just think it's a pretty shitty hand, I don't think it's going to make for a very compelling argument - do you disagree? I'm not even arguing politics here, from what I've seen I don't think the American people will really discern much of a difference. I don't see this ending favourably for Mitt.

 

[Davi323]

I'm not even saying it's hypocritical, or that he should use a different line of attack. I think we both agree that Romney has to use the hand he's been dealt, I just think it's a pretty shitty hand, I don't think it's going to make for a very compelling argument - do you disagree? I'm not even arguing politics here, from what I've seen I don't think the American people will really discern much of a difference. I don't see this ending favourably for Mitt.

MEH. I agree that it would be more effective if he could appeal to both arguments against it, but I don't see it as a terribly shitty hand either. It's not great, but it's not the worst either. A lot the hand's relative value won't be known until after the Supreme Court rules anyway, it just speculation at this point. I kind of see it as an average hand. Pocket 10s, instead of pocket aces. It's not great, but not terrible either, and it's relative value can be changed in an instant based on what shows up with the flop.

 

[SalvIsWin]

MEH. I agree that it would be more effective if he could appeal to both arguments against it, but I don't see it as a terribly shitty hand either. It's not great, but it's not the worst either. A lot the hand's relative value won't be known until after the Supreme Court rules anyway, it just speculation at this point. I kind of see it as an average hand. Pocket 10s, instead of pocket aces. It's not great, but not terrible either, and it's relative value can be changed in an instant based on what shows up with the flop.

And what if the Supreme Court rules Obamacare constitutional? I know you've said before you don't believe this will happen, but assuming it does, how do you view Mitt's chances then?

 

[Davi323]

And what if the Supreme Court rules Obamacare constitutional? I know you've said before you don't believe this will happen, but assuming it does, how do you view Mitt's chances then?

If that happens, it would be a huge blow to Mitt's chances. I have said before that I think the entire election depends on the Supreme Court ruling...but, if that happens, the only strategy I can see for Romney would be to then switch tactics, and concentrate on the financial aspect, how costly it's going to be, and then promise to do everything he can do to get it repealed in Congress if elected. He would have to stress that if the GOP takes over both houses in Congress in addition to electing him as President, they could repeal it regardless of what the Supreme Court decides. I don't think it would work all that well, but as I see it, that would be his only logical play. I would definitely consider that to be a shitty hand, but he would be forced to go all-in with it, and hope he gets lucky.

If the Supreme Court rules Obamacare is Constitutional, I wouldn't place odds on Romney's chances at getting elected though. He would definitely be seen as a longshot.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

If the election were held tomorrow, I'd certainly vote for Obama. Unless some sort me mega disaster hits economically between now and November, then I'm almost certainly voting for Obama.

Ideologically, I'm vehemently opposed to most of the stances Republicans take on social issues and Romney just comes off, to me, as another right wing politician that all but comes out and says that conservative morality should be legislated as law. For me personally, I don't oppose the legal recognition of gay men & women to be married for the purposes of having the same rights as married heterosexual couples. I'm not saying that church leaders or religious institutions have to morally accept them but, to me, it isn't an issue about religion. I believe in God and, in my eyes, it's God's choice what happens to gay men and women after they leave this world. It's for Him to judge, not me. It's about equal rights under the Constitutioin. People shouldn't be denied the same legal rights as everyone else just because of their sexual orientation, nor does sexual orientation determine what sort of character a person has. Same with gay adoption. I don't use my religious beliefs to support bigotry and, quite frankly, that's what a lot of Republicans do. They don't come right out and say it of course, especially politicians, but it's not at all difficult to read between the lines. I'm also a supporter of abortion rights. I'm not sure where I stand on the abortion issue from a personal standpoint if a woman became pregnant with my child. However, even if it wasn't something I would personally want, that doesn't mean that I have the right to take that same personal choice away from others. A democracy means that you have to take the good along with the bad. It can't always be the way you might personally think it should be.

Also, I'm very leary of a Republican president at this point in time. While Obama catches a lot of flack, some of it deservedly so, it wasn't Obama that got us ultimately into the shape we're in. A lot of that is due, not all of it but a lot, to the failed policies and war mongering of George Bush, Jr. If you listen to reports on the news, such as the economy overall, the unemployment rate and a few other things, there is improvement. The housing market is still up and down, but it's better than it was 4 years ago. The unemployment rate is dropping and new jobs are being created. It took a long time for things to get this bad and it's going to take a long time to completely dig us out. At this time, I just have more faith in Obama than I do in Romney.

As for Mitt Romney, he ultimately strikes me as a guy that doesn't really seem to have much interest in those who are poor. I've heard a few clips played of his speeches in which he all but comes out and says that he doesn't really have any ideas as to how to fix the growing gap between rich & poor.

Newt is a nonissue right now. I never even looked at him as a serious candidate. As for whether I would have preferred Santorum to Romney, I can't say I'm overly impressed with either of them. All in all, their rhetoric has been the same anti-Obama, anti-Democrat stuff that I've heard out of every other Republican politician.

At the end of the day, however, I think that there's something that Romney just won't be able to overcome with Obama: personality, charisma & ability to speak to a crowd. It's not always about the issues in an election, that's most definitely a cold hard fact. Sometimes, with all the confusion and double talk going around politics, as well as the fact that politicians make things come off as overly complicated in such a way that it just loses LOTS of people, all people have to go on is which candidate they might personally like the most. Obama is much more charismatic than Romney and Romney just can't talk as eloquently and with the same energy as Obama can. He's just no match for Obama there and those are important factors. Obama's ability to speak and make some sort of connection with people is a significant reason why he beat McCain back in 2008. As I aluded to earlier, unless the economy just suffers a disaster in the next few months, I see Romney losing this election 55% to 45%.

 

[Death Before Disco]

Romney or Obama?

Without hesitation, I will vote for Romney in November. I'm fairly conservative, so I would vote for a suit dummy over Obama. Mitt was my last choice, but he's all but locked in the nomination, so I'll vote for him

Newt's New Role?

Trying to deepen his pocket book. He'll try to talk his way into a cabinet position if Romney is elected, and if not, he'll put out more books and go on more speaking tours.


Romney or Santorum?

My views fall more in line with Santorum, but I try to be pragmatic and use the Buckley rule, voting for the most conservative candidate who can win. Unfortunately, because of the lackluster candidates that were involved in the Republican primary overall, Romney is the only one that I think can get a majority of the independent vote and win the election. I live in Indiana and our primary is May 8th, so I'll be voting for Romney since he's basically the only one left, but I most likely would have voted for him over Santorum anyway just to be pragmatic. Ron Paul has NO chance.