Santorum win in Michigan could be chaos for GOP

Santorum may very well "win" but then he's going to get the same treatment that Ron Paul got in Nevada and Maine as the establishment takes it from him and gives it to Romney
 
I don't think Santorum will win either AZ or MI. The polls show he's dropping fast. People are waking up to who he really is, as the quotes in the article demonstrate.

I see it going like this: Romney wins both states and the push by the establishment to wrap this up begins, with everyone jumping on the Mitt wagon and rallying the voters behind him. We've already seen a lot of this beginning, with pundits whining about the GOP damaging their eventual candidate and giving Obama an advantage. They're antsy and want to begin the "bash Obama" phase of things.
 
I WANT Santorum to win MI (if it's not Ron ofcourse), don't know why any of you want Romney to win. If Romney wins both on Tues there will be a HUGE push to start saying OK, enough then, Romney's our guy, let's get on with it. After that Ron will become even more despised than he is now as everyone will see him as some jerk hanging around and preventing them from starting the Obama bashing. Plus I live in MI and I just do not want Romney to win here, he has been so arrogant all along that he just "had MI in the bag" cuz he was born here, I would love to see him get his ass handed to him.
 
Butchie said:
I WANT Santorum to win MI (if it's not Ron ofcourse), don't know why any of you want Romney to win. If Romney wins both on Tues there will be a HUGE push to start saying OK, enough then, Romney's our guy, let's get on with it. After that Ron will become even more despised than he is now as everyone will see him as some jerk hanging around and preventing them from starting the Obama bashing. Plus I live in MI and I just do not want Romney to win here, he has been so arrogant all along that he just "had MI in the bag" cuz he was born here, I would love to see him get his ass handed to him.
Click to expand...

I sure don't. I want Ron to be the anti Romney. Ron beat Romney in Washington, last time. I'm not as worried about Romney at this stage. Romney will stay in until the end anyhow. Santa and Ginge have enough 'imploding factor' that they might not, and I don't want them to.
 
Butchie said:
I WANT Santorum to win MI (if it's not Ron ofcourse), don't know why any of you want Romney to win.
Click to expand...
I don't want him to, I just think he will. Santorum's dropping off and no one is doing anything to stop it.

It appears to me this is the Paul campaign's strategy, though I think it's a dangerous one, as I've said before. If it ever gets down to Romney and Paul alone, I fear it will be too late for Dr. Paul to do anything about it. Romney will be too strong to stop and Dr. Paul will just be perceived as a fly in the ointment/spoiler. The only attention he'll receive will be loud and frequent calls to drop out.
 
FreedomProsperityPeace said:
I don't want him to, I just think he will. Santorum's dropping off and no one is doing anything to stop it.

It appears to me this is the Paul campaign's strategy, though I think it's a dangerous one, as I've said before. If it ever gets down to Romney and Paul alone, I fear it will be too late for Dr. Paul to do anything about it. Romney will be too strong to stop and Dr. Paul will just be perceived as a fly in the ointment/spoiler. The only attention he'll receive will be loud and frequent calls to drop out.
Click to expand...

You could be right at this stage, it is later than I hoped it would be narrowed to Ron v Romney, and the later states don't know Ron as well.

But I agree that Ron's campaign seems to be thinking the way I am, and I still come down that way, although I see both sides.
 
There are way too many ads playing in AZ talking about how Santorum voted to raise the debt ceiling 5 times among other things. The main FM talk radio here talked about how R-Money is pulling away. Plus Friday the biggest newspaper here endorsed the Goldman Sachs candidate.
 
Because of the negatives of Santorum and Gingrich, I think it would've been wiser to make a coalition with one of them (or even to switch to one now). They would be far easier to take out late in the game than Romney. Both of them are: 1) unlikeable, 2) more prone to gaffes, 3) a scarier prospect as the nominee. Who would be the crazier choice to the voter between Dr. Paul and one of them? The coin flip falls better in our favor.

Maybe Romney will stay in till the end no matter what, but he would be wasting his own money at that point (no passion means no donations flowing to him when the chips are down) and having to face the reality of running from the back of the pack when he's used to being the frontrunner. Does he have the guts to be the underdog/longshot? He withdrew from the last primary on Feb. 7th 2008, so my feeling is no.
 
FreedomProsperityPeace said:
It appears to me this is the Paul campaign's strategy, though I think it's a dangerous one, as I've said before. If it ever gets down to Romney and Paul alone, I fear it will be too late for Dr. Paul to do anything about it. Romney will be too strong to stop and Dr. Paul will just be perceived as a fly in the ointment/spoiler. The only attention he'll receive will be loud and frequent calls to drop out.
Click to expand...

You said it. Through all of these "frontrunners" I've always said it will come back to Romney (it's true, I can find my old posts, not just saying it after the fact) no one seems to notice that the "Anti-Romney" crowd seems to want to stay away from us almost as much as Romney, I really think if Santorum loses MI we will just see Newt surge again in the South, don't think it can happen? Just watch.
 
FreedomProsperityPeace said:
Because of the negatives of Santorum and Gingrich, I think it would've been wiser to make a coalition with one of them (or even to switch to one now). They would be far easier to take out late in the game than Romney. Both of them are: 1) unlikeable, 2) more prone to gaffes, 3) a scarier prospect as the nominee. Who would be the crazier choice to the voter between Dr. Paul and one of them? The coin flip falls better in our favor.

Maybe Romney will stay in till the end no matter what, but he would be wasting his own money at that point (no passion means no donations flowing to him when the chips are down) and having to face the reality of running from the back of the pack when he's used to being the frontrunner. Does he have the guts to be the underdog/longshot? He withdrew from the last primary on Feb. 7th 2008, so my feeling is no.
Click to expand...

Why make a coalition with one of the sure-to-be losers? This race has always been Romney's to lose... with Ron being the only 'dark horse' with enough organization to make a legitimate go at delegates.

Personally, I think Ron & Co's strategy to tag up with Romney until the other "not-Romney" candidates have fizzled = laser sharp.

The reason Ron hasn't really had a sustained surge since Iowa has more to do with the sub-par packaging of his message and 'brand' at the retail level. The stump-speech is minor league ball at best and the lack of any formal speeches has left the media with little to sink their teeth into since Dec '11 (when they first started covering his rallies).

Think back to 2008... remember how professionally packaged Obama's entire campaign/message was? Not just speeches and messaging either (which was poll tested depending on which state he was in). I'm talking all the way down to the staging of his election night rally speeches to the content & design of his website.

Team Paul still acts like a 'mom & pop' outfit... and as endearing as that may be to some of us, at the end of they day, the vast majority of Americans doesn't like or respect that. What they like is when ivy leaguers act like 'mom & pop' out the outside, but are McKinsey/Harvard/Google/Yale/etc on the inside. They may not say it outwardly, but they sense it just the same... because they see examples of it every day (Walmart, Home Depot, and pretty much any other national brand that serves 'average americans')
 
WD-NY said:
Why make a coalition with one of the sure-to-be losers?
Click to expand...
Because we want them to lose! Why team up with and help someone who is harder to beat? That makes no sense. :confused: We want to take out the stronger candidate now and face the weaker one down the stretch.

Personally, I think Ron & Co's strategy to tag up with Romney until the other "not-Romney" candidates have fizzled = laser sharp.
Click to expand...
How long will it take them to fizzle? Long past the time that Dr. Paul has any hope of winning?


The reason Ron hasn't really had a sustained surge since Iowa has more to do with the sub-par packaging of his message and 'brand' at the retail level. The stump-speech is minor league ball at best and the lack of any formal speeches has left the media with little to sink their teeth into since Dec '11 (when they first started covering his rallies).

Think back to 2008... remember how professionally packaged Obama's entire campaign/message was? Not just speeches and messaging either (which was poll tested depending on which state he was in). I'm talking all the way down to the staging of his election night rally speeches to the content & design of his website.

Team Paul still acts like a 'mom & pop' outfit... and as endearing as that may be to some of us, at the end of they day, the vast majority of Americans doesn't like or respect that. What they like is when ivy leaguers act like 'mom & pop' out the outside, but are McKinsey/Harvard/Google/Yale/etc on the inside. They may not say it outwardly, but they sense it just the same... because they see examples of it every day (Walmart, Home Depot, and pretty much any other national brand that serves 'average americans')
Click to expand...
Let's assume you're 100% right. I don't see Dr. Paul changing to that degree. He's not going to polish his presentation that much. That's more Romney's game. And if that's what it takes to win this, then Romney is the last guy we want to go head-to-head with. We want a Newt, who is equally unorthodox in the way he campaigns, or a Santorum who really depends on legwork and old-fashioned campaigning.
 
South Park Fan said:
It's harder to do that with a primary than a party-run caucus.
Click to expand...
Actually, it's easier.

It's then harder to ever prove that it was done. Completely impossible, in most cases.

Think about it. In most of the caucus states so far (Iowa, Nevada, and Maine), hard, incontrovertible proof has come out as to incorrect tallies -- precincts that weren't counted correctly, or at all, etc. In none of the primaries so far has any hard proof come out showing incorrect tallies (though RP supporters dug up some statistical anomalies in SC). I guess this is because the political establishments in the caucus states are corrupt, while the political establishments in the primary states are honest and pure.
 
Last edited:
The media can't even grasp that there isn't a single "Michigan" primary to even win. It's winner-take-all by congressional district, so there's really like 15 "mini Michigan" primaries that could split in any number of ways for Romney, Santorum, or Paul.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Anti Federalist
MI-State offers $500 per month to take in "Newcomers".
Replies
7
Views
834
Anti Globalist
Anti Globalist
Anti Federalist
GOP secures House majority
Replies
15
Views
3K
CCTelander
C
Anti Federalist
Biden administration receives subpoena over ‘inappropriate’ swing state voter registration
Replies
5
Views
573
dannno
dannno
Brian4Liberty
GOP Wants to Cut Spending … Without Cutting Spending
Replies
3
Views
428
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
Voluntarist
Record Slim House Majority Faces New Problems As GOP Lawmaker Announces Exit
Replies
3
Views
504
unknown
unknown
Back
Top