Romney gets Rick-rolled: Santorum sweeps Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado in 2/7 trifecta
Photo source: RickSantorum.com
Scroll for updates…early results in Minnesota and Missouri looking good for Rick Santorum…SWEEEEEEEEEP!
You can get live, updated Colorado GOP caucus results here.
Minnesota caucus results will be here.
And Missouri primary results here.
***
Update: Networks projecting Santorum the winner in Missouri.
And he’s leading early in Minnesota.
What did I tell ya? Santorum’s got game. (ICYMI: My endorsement post last week.)
Now, he needs your help to unite the Right.
***
Note: If Santorum sweeps these critical battleground states tonight, he will have won more states than “frontrunner” Mitt Romney (he has snagged three states).
Nothing is inevitable in politics.
Also noteworthy: Santorum is doing this with just a fraction of Mitt Romney’s money.
Money can take you far, but just like Mitt Romney learned in 2008 and is learning again, it can’t seal the deal.
***
Commenter TigerLady:
I’ve had so many people tell me today my vote in Missouri “doesn’t count”. I voted Santorum. If it “doesn’t count” at least I exercised my right to do it.
Fun fact from Erik Telford:
Romney won the 2008 MN Caucus w/ 41%. Tonight, he garnered 16%, placing 3rd behind RON PAUL. That Pawlenty endorsement really helped…
T-Guffaw.
***
Update 10:54pm Eastern: Santorum at Missouri victory speech: “Conservatism is alive and well in Missouri and Minnesota…1600 Pennsylvania better be listening.”
Staying focused: Santorum blasting radical Obama policies — cap and trade, Obamacare, bailouts — in Missouri victory speech.
Romney shares many of the same positions as Obama.
“I’m not the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. I’m the conservative alternative to Barack Obama.”
“Supply-side economics for the working man is resonating.”
“I care about 100 percent of Americans.”
“Freedom is at stake in this election.”
Update 11:35pm Eastern…Santorum maintaining lead as precinct returns get tallied up here in Colorado.
Significant: Romney lost Adams County to Santorum. He won 67% there in 2008. Barely scraped together 31 percent this year. This is the Denver suburbs.
Update 12:30am It’s a squeaker. With 51 percent reporting and liberal Denver and suburban Denver votes coming in, Romney has eked ahead for the first time tonight 37-35 over Santorum. El Paso County, where I live, is still counting votes. Santorum has a big lead here and these votes will offset some of the Denver edge Romney has.
Update 1:04am Eastern – GOP Party Chairman of Colorado Ryan Call announces on CNN that with 98 percent of precincts reporting, Rick Santorum has won Colorado, completing his 2/7 trifecta.
He “exceeded expectations,” says Call. His margin of victory in my home county of El Paso was 1300 votes.
Video:
Update 1:38am – With 100 percent precincts reporting, final margin of victory:
Denver Post coverage of Colorado caucus results:
Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum upended the race for the Republican nomination Tuesday, winning three states including Colorado.
Colorado’s race see-sawed throughout the night until 11 p.m., when Colorado GOP Chair Ryan Call declared Santorum the winner. But the race was a near tie.
“This is a major upset,” said Denver-based political analyst Floyd Ciruli. “Definitely, there is a new story now.”
Even Romney, who easily won the Republican contest in 2008 with 60 percent of the vote, acknowledged in his speech from the Auraria campus his new challenger.
“This was a good night for Rick Santorum, but I still expect to become the nominee,” he said. “I look forward to the contest to come.”
***
I repeat: The “frontrunner” with a $30 million war chest now has won fewer states than Rick Santorum.
I repeat: Money can take you far, but just like Mitt Romney learned in 2008 and is learning again, it can’t seal the deal.
***
Mitt Romney: Tonight, you were Rick-rolled.
***
Santorum won Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado the same way he won Iowa: Hard work.
Congratulations, Sen. Santorum, on your 2/7 trifecta!
Now, get ready for the attacks, the press smears, more glitter, and likely CPAC ambushes. Forewarned is forearmed.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
GOP Texas primary fight: Desperate Dewhurst slimes conservative challenger Ted Cruz
May 25, 2012 07:31 PM by Michelle Malkin
8 CommentsWho’s funding Brett Kimberlin?
May 25, 2012 01:52 PM by Michelle Malkin
29 CommentsObama’s Land of the LOST
May 25, 2012 01:42 PM by Michelle Malkin
56 CommentsObama’s latest campaign angle: I’ve been saving America from wild Republican debts
May 24, 2012 04:33 PM by Doug Powers
55 Comments
Senate finally passes a budget approves bill striking word ‘lunatic’ from federal law
May 24, 2012 11:22 AM by Doug Powers
193 CommentsStammertime: Jay Carney asked if Chicago protests have soured Obama’s support for OWS
May 23, 2012 07:44 PM by Doug Powers
54 Comments
S.E. Cupp, Hustler, and the four stages of conservative female abuse
May 23, 2012 02:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
142 CommentsBiden: Tea Party stopped us from growing the economy
May 23, 2012 01:55 PM by Doug Powers
44 Comments
Pig Maher’s boy Bill Burton mocks my support of Hatch challenger Dan Liljenquist
May 23, 2012 11:37 AM by Michelle Malkin
32 Comments
Categories: 2012 Campaign,GOP,Mitt Romney,Politics
JustOneMinute
» Barack, Youthful Leader!JustOneMinute
» Patterico And The Brett Kimberlin GangBabalu Blog
» U.S. Manned Space Flight in The 21st CenturyVillainous Company
» Must Read Post of the Day. Possibly, the Year
I don’t see where that counters my point. I believe we spend far too much money on the military already because we’ve defined the mission as being the policemen of the world. We don’t need much of the manpower we currently have so naturally it means there would be fewer military personnel. So what? Military is government spending. It reduces the amount of capital we need to make things for the purpose of breaking things. It may be a necessary evil but it is essentially “wasted” money.
Spending American money and lives to defend the entire world from itself is not only stupid but it is a colossal drain of our resources and we can’t afford it.
Now watch the Hayak vs Keynes video (new link) paying attention to the arguments.
If that’s all it meant, then all GOP candidates are social conservatives. In Santorum’s case, it also means such things as being opposed to the use of contraceptives in all cases, and being opposed to abortion even in the case of rape. Now I’ve defended him on these things, and will continue to do so. But let’s not kid ourselves that this is very likely an Achilles heel for him, especially if he doesn’t do an effective job at defending himself, convincingly.
The problem with social conservatism from a purely strategic perspective has been that while fiscal and economic conservatives, at least since the time of Reagan, have had a pretty good record of being able to persuade others of the rightness of their position, social conservatives haven’t had quite the same level of success, to put it mildly. Instead, they more often than not provoke derision. The only defense against that is someone who really knows how to argue his case clearly, articulately, and confidently.
I’m unsure of how well that describes Santorum.
It is hard to get truth into your brains but I can’t give up trying quite yet:
Mitt’s record is very solidly conservative. You are hating on a friend to you.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pro-family-advocates-defend-romneys-record-on-life-marriage/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews-us+%28CNA+Daily+News+-+US%29#.TzM5hav1EJY.twitter
Gladiola #303: “hating on a friend”. How old are you? “hating on a friend”.
I can play that game too I suppose. Baby gurl, boo, you’ve made your point.
Social Conservatism tends to be opposed to libertarianism. We want the government out of our lives but we want a government strong enough to put a gun to woman’s head and force her to have a baby she does not want to have.
Abortion is wrong, it is at best the lesser of two evils, but the GOP should stay away from that. It will scare off independents, especially women who we need to win this election, I cannot stress the importance of the independents enough.
It will be fiscal conservatism that wins this election. People are tired of massive government spending they are not interested in hearing what men (it may not be entirely fair but it’s true: men’s views on abortion are much less valid than women’s) think about abortion.
Let me repeat: abortion is the wrong choice in 99/100 cases, but we cannot win this election on that issue, and the media will likely try and make this election about Santroum’s statement about abortion if he win’s the nomination.
LEAVE MITTENS ALONE !
Sniff
Sniffle
Sob
If Rombama is a conservative, why are so many of us so upset with Obamney? I guess central planning and one-world-without-borders one-party government must be the new conservative. Next time, cc me on that memo.
Because it isn’t your point he was trying to counter. He was trying to clarify that you had completely missed his.
RP made an imbecilic (and I believe completely disingenuous) statement about how bringing troops home to spend their money here would stimulate the economy. T-Bone called him on it, and then you posted about something else (namely Paul’s overall foreign policy) as though taking issue with T-Bone’s point, (which you never actually addressed) while tacitly accusing everyone of falling victim to anti-Paul misinformation in much the same manner that the tin-eared Mitt apologist gladiola is currently wearing out.
I must say some of you “forgiving christians” are just as bad as those you despise on the left after reading the comments some of have posted towards gladiola. Go ahead let me have it with both barrels.
OK_Loyalist said #306
Kind of reminds me of obama. We weren’t supposed to say anything against him either. Romney gives the same impression, being offended if you challenge him.
Then, there’s that fake smile and phony laugh that just irritate me no end.
Excuse me? RP’s point wasn’t that troops would come home AS TROOPS and spend their money here AS TROOPS, they would be EMPLOYED CIVILIANS spending money AT HOME.
I’m not the one missing the point. Both of you are. You are looking at an ink blot and seeing what you want to see.
You question whether the emperor has some gay “Down-Low” tendencies.
….missing a “special assistant” named Reggie.
….That $50K+ shopping spree at an upscale Manhanttan lingerie boutique (aka not Maidenform) by the the very controlling Mrs.
….The 2009 Eyes Wide Shut Halloween party
Ask the current Lestat-like-Claudia-of- JFK-years if very discreet sexcapades is not possible at 1600 Pa Ave….or ask Monic…
ohh never mind
Just remove all the Os on the keyboards when you vacate the premises
Because men can’t see things from a woman’s perspective? How many men or women can see things from the baby’s perspective?
Transcribing from the speech link:
Prior to that he had mentioned “bringing the troops home” and “we don’t need to spend all this money to keep troops all around the world, 130 countries 900 bases”
Nothing in there to indicate the troops would no longer be troops, unless of course the US is one of the “130 countries” he where he intends to close the bases. Does Ron intend to disband the military? Probably not, but no reason to think that any troops released from duty into the private sector would have much money to spend in this economy.
Also worthy of note is Paul’s complete disconnect with why the Soviets spent money until they collapsed. That would be us, Dr. Paul.
I’d find the guy much more palatable if he could find a bit more outrage for the other 80% of the budget he routinely ignores while he blames “foreign wars” for damaging the economy.
No, progressivism is opposed to libertarianism. Social conservatism refers to social values, not political values. Some well-known social conservatives are also progressives (see Bush, George W.). Other social conservatives are also libertarians (see Reagan, Ronald).
You contradict yourself. There are plently of pro-life libertarians. The question is whose rights are respected, the mother’s right to “choose” or the baby’s right to live. It’s not about forcing her to have a baby she doesn’t want, it’s about saving a human life. If she didn’t want her 2month old, you wouldn’t let her kill her baby. You wouldn’t call that “big government.”
http://damagereport.com/?p=1619
Yep true conservative that Rick Santorum… and shall we start to ask about how he got a loan that he did not qualify for… what favors that entailed… sound a bit like Obama and Resnik… but true conservatives are always full of graft and corruption right?
That true conservative whipped your RINO East Coasters ass with nominal treasure. How many millions did Mittens spend?
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1441615036001/
On February 08, 2012 at 07:23 pm, inspector_javert said:
Problem is, the imminent threat FROM Urkel will still be around, and I want someone who says they will repeal that abomination.
On February 08, 2012 at 07:27 pm, inspector_javert said:
…he referred to it as a charter of negative liberties saying what the states or fed can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what it must do.
Raving azzhat thinks he knows better.
On February 08, 2012 at 09:18 pm, inspector_javert said:
All I can say is….wow.
If abortion is the lesser of two evils, what is the other evil?
…as for independents….I could care less about them. For years we have heard about mealy- mouthed squishy independents who are always bolting away from Republicans to the socialists. Who cares where the hell they go anymore. Why do they never bolt from the left? If they are too stupid to see what is going on in this country at this point in time then they are too stupid to be voting and should stay home, or just admit they are closet democrats.
Hear! Hear!
Despite the hushed whispers about “social conservatism” that the Establishment and certain columnist speak of, the truth is that if you talk one on one with most folks they are far more socially conservative than fiscally conservative. Some of the fiscal concepts are counter-intuitive (like tax cuts that increase revenue), whereas the moral issues have been instilled since they were youngsters.
Thank you mondamay. You have my point exactly. Phil is missing the point. There is a leap in logic in Ron Pauls reasoning. Nowhere did he mention they would get civilian jobs. Phil is making that part up.
I am pretty sure that when hundreds of soldiers return home rather rapidly, in this bad economy, many of them will not find civilian jobs. Unless Ron Paul plans on taking the savings from the military spending and giving them jobs.
Ron Paul was making a statement not fully in line with logic. Those kind of comments lead me to believe he doesn’t have it all figured out. In the end, it will probably be better but don’t mislead me with a statement about closing bases will cause soldiers to spend their money here and boost the economy. Thats ludicrous. The money saved will probably be used by him to pay down the debt which will create opportunity which may lead to them getting civilian jobs. Thats all conjecture and he didn’t talk about any such plan. Was he really saying something different than what he said?
Extrapolate that illogical belief to other issues he supports and we could see other big problems he is not considering. Closing the Fed, cutting spending by $1 trillion in the first year, legalizing drugs, immigration, leaving our foreign allies to fend for themselves tomorrow. Has he really thought through the consequences of his policies, or is he just throwing caution to the wind in pursuit of ideological fallacy?
Does he believe that there is evil in the world that is not the United States? He always talks about us being evil and causing problems. Everything just appears to be blowback for our evil actions. He never addresses what real evil does to the world which does directly affect us. The proverbial ostrich with his head buried in the sand. World Wars with millions of people killed ensued because of leaders like Neville Chamberlain, who did exactly that. I worry about that aspect of his candidacy.
@ Blackstone – I highly doubt Santorum will be calling for the banning of contraception in the US, but I’m pretty sure he’s against the Federal Government forcing the Catholic Church (and others?) to provide contraceptives to anybody who wants them. That is a Libertarian issue too.
I’m also personally opposed to abortion even in the case of rape, but I’ve also read a lot more than the average person about the negative effects of any abortion. Santorum doesn’t need to go there. We know he’s been consistently Pro-Life, and that’s good enough for me.
I agree he needs to focus on Fiscal/Economic issues.
I thought it was a good point, and worthy of defense.
Well they lead me to believe that RP’s target demographic (the voter he is trying to attract) is made up of non-voting, ill-informed, malcontents. His issues are often more populist sloganeering than Libertarian principles. As I said he grouses about 2 trillion in war money at every opportunity, and yet I’ve not actually heard him talk about how we spend nearly that much a year on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
I honestly think his goal is to harness eligible voters who ordinarily would never vote, because they are largely apolitical, which is why he continually champions causes that aren’t particularly high on the regular voter’s priority list, and utters statements (or puts them in his newsletters) that leave you wondering about who he is trying to appeal to.
And I’ve made that exact point also to our leftward posters on this site. The problem isn’t with the actual social policies he’d look to get enacted, it’s with how he’ll be portrayed, and how much his own statements and conduct will play into the hands of those looking to do so.
The uncomfortable truth is that social conservatives have been very effectively typecast as dimwitted, small-minded busybodies. I need to know if Santorum will be able to counter that perception.
But when challenged on his social positions, he needs to have strong, convincing answers. Or the race will be made about those things, regardless of what he wishes to focus on. Trying to sweep these things under the rug will only make matters worse for him, because it will only convince everyone that this must be his “real agenda” that he doesn’t want to talk about. And if he doesn’t define himself in that area, his enemies will define him instead.
The other evil is forcing a woman to have a baby that will result in her death. It’s a very rare situation I know but it’s the situation the radical pro-choice disciples pull out when you talk about abortion.
In the case of rape it could have damaging psychological consequences for the woman, I’m aware that an abortion also carries negative psychological consequences as well, having to spend 9 months with a constant reminder of what happened to her.
All that said if it were up to me no woman would have an abortion except to save her life. I think that as medical science advances we will begin to see that consciousness begins very early in fetal development. That won’t be enough to change the law, but it might be enough to change hearts and minds. That’s what I think the focus of the pro-life movement should be.
I don’t disagree but lets not kid ourselves, men will never have to make the choice to abort or not. We will never carry a child. Not to mention the popular culture portrays men who encourage women to keep the baby as abusers (See: Law and Order SVU).
The ultimate truth here is this with Obama we have a 0% chance of advancing a pro-life agenda, with Romney, or another moderate republican we have a greater than 0% chance. I’d rather save 10 lives than 0 lives.
As for not caring what the independents think I fear saying that ignores a basic political reality:
Neither side can win without the independent votes, I don’t like it, you don’t like it, no one in the GOP Likes it. The fact is our die hard supporters do not make up enough to win an election. (Thank God the dem’s die hard supporters don’t either.)
If we campaign on abortion independent female voters will flee. Single females already vote democrat in overwhelming numbers the few women who know whats good for the country don’t want an old white man telling them what to do with their bodies. (It doesn’t matter that their bodies are now being shared with another body popular culture has them convinced it isn’t a life.)
If we don’t campaign on abortion but Santorum is the nominee then the MSM will bring out his old quotes about abortion and rape, and his wife’s history with the abortion doctor (it’s happening already).
Even with the new media we still have to play by the rules the dems and MSM set out for us. They are unfair and biased against us but thats what we have to deal with.
I want to win this election our Republic WILL die if Obama is reelected. I would like nothing better than to be wrong here I would love it if a strong conservative could win I just don’t think they can.
Sorry if this is kind of stream of consciousness.
@ Blackstone – good point(s), but I think Santorum will be able to defend those ideas, since he’s been consistent on them for many years (unlike Romney). But I think he needs to be able to shift the arguments into issues of economic and personal freedom, which I think he can do.
I haven’t read any comment saying who you endorse. Who are you for?
But shh, don’t mention the abusers and manipulators who “encourage” their (often underage) girlfriends to abort the baby. Apparently we’re not supposed to talk about them.
He needs to be more than just consistent. He needs to be persuasive. Over the years, how many people do you think he’s been able to persuade who weren’t already on his side to begin with?
You’re gonna think I’m completely nuts, but I’m still kinda holding out hope for Gingrich. Here’s my reasoning: I’d rather go with someone who agrees with me on only a few things, but does a masterful job of defending those positions, than someone who agrees with me on everything but who does a less effective job at defending them.
Of course, with Romney you get the worst of both worlds. What I’d really like to see is his campaign implode and have this be a 2-man race between Newt and Rick so that whoever comes out the winner is made stronger by the contest. Romney’s just a demoralizing distraction at this point. He adds nothing of value to the race.
And all this based upon the numerous other times Republicans have won presidential elections by moving to the center, I suppose.
This is about the 4th time at least that I have heard an election year wave of these arguments, and they have never proven true!
Americans (even independents) are more socially conservative than they are fiscally conservative. That has a lot to do with how we can’t get Congress to be more responsive to calls for fiscal restraint, low taxes, and reduced regulation. Even among regular voters, the concepts are often not fully grasped.
It is time we started using social conservatism as a tool to get to fiscal conservatism, rather than buying the constantly wrong conventional wisdom that tells us to run from it.
@Blackstone – OK, good enough. My fall-back candidate to Santorum would be Romney instead of Gingrich, but that’s just me.
I just hope Santorum is up to the challenges you mentioned. May God bless his campaign.