Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Should Rick Santorum drop out before Florida primary? (Reader poll)

Should Rick Santorum drop out before Florida primary? (Reader poll)

Here were the final results in South Carolina:  Gingrich 40.4, Romney 27.8, Santorum, 17, Paul 13.

Drop Out Argument:  On what basis does Santorum continue?  His Iowa momentum never lasted beyond Iowa.  South Carolina, with a large evangelical vote whose leadership endorsed him, was Santorum’s best chance, and he could only muster 17%.  To continue on would be to play the spoiler, continuing to split the conservative vote. We need a head-to-head matchup. What else?

Stay In Argument:  Santorum is a more true conservative than the others, and 17% is not too shabby.  It’s a higher percentage than Newt got in Iowa and New Hampshire.   Anything could happen, and voters need another choice other than Ron Paul.  Newt may implode if some new scandal erupts or the weight of attacks on him brings him down again, or Romney may implode once it becomes obvious how weak a candidate he is.  Hanging around keeps a conservative in the race for when the next shoe drops. What else?

Poll is open until 10 a.m. Eastern, Monday.


DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Santorum is a lot of nice things.

He is not a Conservative. He is no friend of market economics.

    don fulano in reply to Ragspierre. | January 22, 2012 at 12:11 pm

    Santorum is the most Conservative.
    Gingrich is the most Progressive.
    Romney is the most Establishment.
    Paul is the most wacky-Libertarian.

      Milwaukee in reply to don fulano. | January 22, 2012 at 12:36 pm

      Yes, Newt is progressive. Too bad. The conservative I would like to have running, Sarah Palin, has declined. Michelle Bachman may be conservative, but she has not run an effective campaign, and comes across as too shrewish. Perry might have worked, but he never really seemed to have his heart into the matter. I wish Newt were more conservative. But perhaps we’ll just have to settle for a small-government progressive over our socialist President. Newt will take the fight to 0bama. Why haven’t candidates been discussing how to get rid of 0bamaCare, or excessive regulations, or be more fossil fuel independent, or deal with the problems of nuclear energy.

      Newt will fight 0bama, the others seem reluctant. So Governor Romney is paying 15% taxes on money which has already been taxed. How is that fair? Yet the Governor cringes.

      Lincoln picked Grant because he would fight. When told Grant drank whiskey, Lincoln replied “Tell me what brand of whiskey that Grant drinks. I would like to send a barrel of it to my other generals.”

      Darkstar58 in reply to don fulano. | January 22, 2012 at 6:27 pm

      That is just wrong.

      Newt has a higher Conservative voting record (90%) then Santorum (88%) and has been much more responsible for sponsoring/pushing Conservative issues

      Santorum would actually better line up with RINOs/Light-Progressives because of his Bush/”Compassionate Conservative” like stance and desire for Government Programs designed to help strengthen families and such.

      Romney is the Staunch Progressive though, complete with the extreme Liberal Governing record and desire to say anything to anyone in his desire to gain power.

      Oh, and Paul is best described as a Conspiracy Nut with political leanings embed in Libertarian which specifically touch Isolationist and Anti-Federalist more then anything and get really close to Jefferson’s words (but not his actions)

      RightKlik in reply to don fulano. | January 22, 2012 at 10:29 pm

      Mitt is the only one who has run and governed as a progressive. He has correctly labeled himself as a progressive.

      Mitt is the only GOP candidate who has served a decidedly progressive electorate by implementing and promoting progressive policies.

      Mitt is the only candidate with the nerve to run for the GOP nomination from the center, generally ignoring the conservative base.

      Mitt’s “ignore the base” strategy hurt him in Iowa and SC and will continue to hurt him until he makes corrections.

Santorum could show strength in the Jacksonville / north counties bible belt in Fla and take votes away from Mitt and make it easier for Newt to close on him.

Since delegates are proportional rather than winner take all till 1 apr under RNC rules that will keep the game close.

    retire05 in reply to CommentGuy. | January 22, 2012 at 9:27 am

    You’re wrong. South Carolina was winner-take-all. So is Florida. And there are a number of Super Tuesday states that are winner-take-all.

    The difference is that all states who are holding their primaries prior to April 1st lose half their delegates.

      PhillyGuy in reply to retire05. | January 22, 2012 at 10:18 am

      The winner of South Carolina gets 11 at large delegates plus 2 from each district he wins.

      Florida is the only state that conducts a primary before April 1st that is winner-take-all.

        valleyforge in reply to PhillyGuy. | January 23, 2012 at 2:10 am

        Arizona is also winner-take-all.

        And in March, Vermont is winner-take-all and most other WTA by congressional district, which in practice amounts to the same thing. Massachusetts and New Hampshire are the only primaries before April that are proportional in the sense you and I think of, rather than the sense the RNC permits.

In Florida 4 cities count. Jacksonville,Orlando,Tampa/St Pete and Miami.

To a minor extent also Gainesville the rest of the state is pure fly over country.

Forget the 10 video markets those 4 are the ones that will make or break.

    What you’re missing is that “flyover country” is where the strength of the Republican Party is in Florida. Miami has a Democratic Mayor as does Tampa, Orlando and Jacksonville…

    Having grown up in Panama City (17 years) and lived in Tallahassee (13 years), I’ve watch NW/North Fla turn from solidly Demmocratic to solidly Republican. No Republican in a statewide race can ignore the geographic area “Gainesville the rest of the state is pure fly over country.” To do so is to lose a GOP race.

    Rich Vail
    (now living in) Pikesville, Maryland
    http://thevailspot.blogspot.com

      Excellent points. Having grown up in the Florida panhandle (recently moved back to the state, if not the panhandle) and then moved to MA, I was stunned in 2000 when FL was called for Gore before the polls had even closed in the panhandle. At the time I thought that the media was totally ignorant and quite possibly droolingly stupid (perhaps unable to use Google) for not knowing about the time zones in FL, but after seeing them at work over the past few years, I wonder now if that wasn’t by design, to try to influence panhandle voters. It didn’t. Of course.

      Dismissing the panhandle of FL is a big mistake. Big.

I would like him to drop out because I think Newt and Romney are the only ones capable of beating Obama. I would like Paul to drop out too, but that is unlikely.

On the other hand, there is no objective reason for Santorum to drop out. His results so far are as good as Newt’s. If he doesn’t do well in the next primary or two, then he should drop out for sure.

[…] And, from Professor Jacobson: A reader poll: Should Santorum drop out before Florida? […]

Santorum is a more true conservative than the others? I guess you have decided to emulate the MSM and ignore Paul. Plus, of course, Santorum is as big a statist as either Romney or Gingrich — the main difference is that he’d used the power of the state for other purposes.

    Darkstar58 in reply to Henry Bowman. | January 22, 2012 at 6:38 pm

    Paul has the least Conservative record of everyone ever in the race (save probably Romney), and lines up with Democrats, Liberal-Leaning Independents and Occupiers more then almost anyone you can find calling themselves Republicans.

      valleyforge in reply to Darkstar58. | January 23, 2012 at 2:14 am

      No, Paul is the most conservative candidate as evidenced by a 30-year voting record. Supporting mandates, cap and trade, Medicare prescription drugs, Freddie Mac, debt ceiling increases and huge spending increases under Bush as Santorum and Newt have variously done is not conservative.

I’d love to see him hit the showers right about now, but it’s likely the donors that will be making the decision for him… he can kiss the VP slot goodbye after the last debate.

Henry Hawkins | January 22, 2012 at 9:28 am

Viewed only through the lens of my particular political hopes, yes, I’d love to see Santorum drop out, but when I look at it objectively, no, he ought to stay in. He didn’t just win Iowa, he came from faaaar behind in short order to do so. He was robbed of the momentum that comes from that sort of thing for two reasons: Iowa miscounted and his victory wasn’t announced for weeks, and Romney’s home state of NH followed IA, where no one was expected to challenge Romney.

Romney has led two states by large margins only to see a challenger surge and pass him in the last few days. This may be a sign that Republican voters favor him on paper, but when it comes to pulling the lever, they just cannot do it. If true, then this may be a two race between Gingrich and Santorum, not Gingrich and Captain Inevitable.

In that this primary run has been so unpredictable, I couldn’t blame any candidate for staying in.

    …..in short order….
    ?
    He lived there for a year! That isn’t short order!

      Henry Hawkins in reply to herm2416. | January 22, 2012 at 10:42 am

      Use your noggin. Santorum was down deep in the polls in Iowa despite how long he’d been there running. He then surged forward to win it over the last few days. The surge was short, not his time in Iowa.

Santorum isn’t a real conservative? To say that you would have to completely ignore social issues. And what’s with the Groupthink regarding conservative economics? If anyone should drop out it’s Paul, eventhough he is more of an economic conservative than anyone in the race. The problem with him is his loopy foreign policy ideas.

Something to also keep in mind is the delegate count: Romney-33, Gingrich-25, Santorum-13. Florida has 50 delegates at stake and is winner-take-all. As Iowa and SC show, things can change in a hurry at the last minute. The race is far from over.

    Yes, many Libertarians ignore social issues.

    That’s why they never get more than 17% of the vote, anywhere, anytime.

    A Conservative/Populist who plays social issues well will dominate the Midwest and lost CA, NY, MA, and all the other irrelevant outposts of Sodom, Gomorrah, and Mammon.

    That’s what the (R) Big Boyzzz are afraid of, my man.

      valleyforge in reply to dad29. | January 23, 2012 at 2:19 am

      Dems love social issues because they are wedge issues. They separate suburbanites who are fiscal conservatives but socially tolerant from the GOP. Running as a social conservative who wants to implement national social policies is a great way to win Alabama and lose the nation.

    phlogiston makes the same mistake many do, when they conflate their social conservative values with political conservative values.

    A genuine political conservative (e.g. one who supports Federalism) would have a much better comprehension of what the 10th Amendment means, as well as the Constitutional limitations of Federal power.

    Speaking as a Federalist, many social cons are just like progressives in that both groups would like to use Federal power to enforce their view of culture & society on the rest of the country.

    I like Ron Paul for his financial positions, but the further away I get from them, less I like. He’s mostly okay on individual rights, but -like many Libertarians- he tends to focus more on ideological purity than practical governance. His foreign policy positions are embarrassing to read.

    Still, I would feel much better about a Santorum, or even a Paul administration than another four years of Obama. And if we make gains in the House & Senate, we can keep the Executive on their toes. 🙂

      phlogiston in reply to Casey. | January 22, 2012 at 11:06 pm

      You actually make my point for me Casey. To accuse people of conflating social conservative values and political conservative values is to discount social conservatives as somehow not “real” conservatives.
      As for social conservatives being like progressives for wanting “to use Federal power to enforce their view of culture & society on the rest of the country,” it is one of the only legitimate purposes of governement to protect the lives of its citizens. Social conservatism (read, opposition to abortion) therefore is not just like progressivism, which seeks to expand governement far beyond its legitimate bounds. There is a difference between conservatism and anarchism.

    Darkstar58 in reply to phlogiston. | January 22, 2012 at 6:47 pm

    Using new, big, Government Programs to force Conservative-like ideas is hardly “Conservative” – its “Statist” or a “Conservative-Progressive” hybrid (like Bush2)

I didn’t like Santorum when he was my senator and I would never vote for him for President. At this point, I’m all in for Newt. Any (R) candidate is going to face a media gauntlet, but I have faith in Newt’s ability to deflect hits and emerge triumphant. And I soooo look forward to seeing him take on Obama in a debate!

DINORightMarie | January 22, 2012 at 10:04 am

Santorum has not been able to break the 20% barrier, let alone excite the base to pull the lever for him. His debate skills are weak; his inability to present his ideas and sway the voters shows – he is not getting his points across when the heat is on.

Now, as a candidate for senator, he is both solid and viable. I think he should do as Huntsman and Perry did: take the lay of the land in FL, re-evaluate his chances, and then (if things look then as they do today) suspend his campaign for president.

I would also encourage him to consider running again for the senate in PA. He now has name recognition in his favor, has sharpened his skills as a first tier political Conservative, and demonstrated his stability and heart to the nation.

There has never been a more “ripe” time for a conservative to win in PA (except, perhaps, the 2010 election). Santorum could win a Senate seat, and then launch another presidential campaign in the future.

Win-win for us all: we NEED conservative candidates for the Senate, to get McConnell out of the running for majority leader, should the Republicans flip the Senate in 2012.

There are LOTS of needs for 2012 – we mustn’t lose focus on the House and Senate races, which are CRUCIAL to turning our country around, back on the RIGHT track!

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to DINORightMarie. | January 22, 2012 at 7:44 pm

    Penn Sen ?

    Do you really think west & south Penn is gong to forgive him for sponsoring Sandusky ?

    I have spent some time there – & I think they are going to get very angry if the Sandusky thing is as horrible as it seems.

    Still waters run deep.

This is rediculous! Santorun only rose to the top because of that stupid ring around the rosey media hype after giving newt the most dishonest schalacking in history. Now that the media hype is gone he’s falling by the wayside. If he continues hes just going to get clobbered around about until he drops out. Rick the fat lady has sung, get out of Newts way – we have date with destiny, and Gingrich is going to be the one to give Obama the electoral bearing he so richly deserves.

    Hope Change in reply to imfine. | January 22, 2012 at 11:40 pm

    ooo, imfine, a date with destiny. sounds familiar, sounds great. Congratulations Newt, and Thank You, South Carolina!

Santorum is not my first choice, but I have to admit that his combative contributions in the last debate did not go unnoticed. I’m looking forward to his performances next week in the Sunshine State.

As someone who resides in a teeny tiny conservative pocket on the Left Coast, I would appreciate (for once!) a Republican primary that keeps the Final Four in the race until the finish line is crossed. That’s assuming all Four have the stamina, i.e. the money, to finish the marathon.

…in my dreams.

[…] Legal Insurrection wonders if Santorum should drop out before Florida […]

According to Matt Drudge Newt is the one who should drop out. Apparently Drudge has some sort of vendetta against Newt and his once fairly objective web site has become a bash Newt site. I always thought Drudge would remain neutral in his selection of positive vs negative reports on the candidates but so far he has slammed Newt at every opportunity. I am disappointed.

    herm2416 in reply to ldwaddell. | January 22, 2012 at 10:29 am

    I sure wish he could see our comments here! Drudge has lost a lot of credibility, all the while showing his visitor count each month.

    MerryCarol in reply to ldwaddell. | January 22, 2012 at 10:40 am

    Apparently, that’s not how Newt sees it. He’s proudly displaying the Drudge headline and photo on his Google+.

      Newt is courting the anti establishment GOP types. He is going to wear these like a badge of honor. I was surprised he hadn’t exploited it more until his speech last night.
      If I where Newts communication director I’d have more than a few videos out with clips and headlines of pundits all saying how bad Newt is, then a simple monologue from Newt saying “Don’t let anyone else make up your mind for you.”

      Simple and it channels all the angst that most people are feeling about how the media is trying to sway public opinion.

The one candidate that should drop out is Ron Paul.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to ldwaddell. | January 22, 2012 at 11:02 am

    Paul is the second candidate who should drop out. The first is Obama.

    janitor in reply to ldwaddell. | January 22, 2012 at 11:29 am

    Ron Paul can still take votes away from Romney in states in which Gingrich is not on the ballet.

    I am hoping Santorum talks with Gingrich.

    CatoRenasci in reply to ldwaddell. | January 22, 2012 at 12:29 pm

    No, Ron Paul staying in ensures that free market economics and limited government remain the focus of the Republicans, not idiotic ultramontane right wing social engineering.

      Milwaukee in reply to CatoRenasci. | January 22, 2012 at 2:27 pm

      The reason Ted Kennedy stayed in the Presidential Primaries in 1980 is because he wanted President Jimmy Carter to lose his election. (Which he was quite capable of doing without Teddy’s help.) I must believe that Ron Paul wants the Republicans to lose the Presidential Election.

      If his ideas are so wonderful, he wouldn’t need to stay in the contest in order for those ideas to gain sway in the marketplace of ideas.

        valleyforge in reply to Milwaukee. | January 23, 2012 at 2:25 am

        Ri-i-ight. Don’t run for office. Let people with opposing ideas run and set policy. So the GOP should just let the Dems run and propagate our conservative ideas in the marketplace of ideas and hope the Dems turn towards them.

    valleyforge in reply to ldwaddell. | January 23, 2012 at 2:22 am

    Jim DeMint and Sarah Palin disagree with you. They like Paul’s issues being discussed in the GOP.

No, for the simple reason that we have had THREE states vote.

So for the same reason, we should not be calling it for Mitt or for Newt.

As Santorum said last night: 3 states, 3 winners, isn’t this a great country?!

As Palin said last night, “there are 47 more states to go. Or if you’re Obama, there’s 54 more …” 🙂

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/elisabethmeinecke/2012/01/21/palin_on_how_much_of_primary_is_left_if_youre_barack_obama_we_still_have_54_states_to_go

I am hoping that Rick Santorum puts his convictions ahead of his personal desires and does the right thing. He has immense power right now to make a huge difference, and move the course the election and our futures.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to janitor. | January 22, 2012 at 4:42 pm

    I think Rick Perry left Iowa for SC knowing he’d pull out and endorse Newt, and timed it perfectly. It is possible, I suppose, that Santorum is doing the same, that he will wait until a couple days before the FL primary, announce he’s out, and endorse Newt. This assumes Santorum’s FL polling doesn’t surge for some reason, of course.

    Anyone know the demographics in FL? It’s a southern state geographically, of course, but what percentage of current Floridians came from northern states within the past, oh, twenty years?

Santorum should stay in IF he truly believes in his message (for purposes of this discussion, the message, “I wanna be president” doesn’t count).

Unfortunately, by this standard I’m not sure anybody but Ron Paul should stay in.

No. He pulls the candidates to the right.

It’s not Santorum’s motivation, but I hope he stays in to force the convention to several rounds of voting. Maybe a better candidate will emerge.

Dreaming for a second here:
Romney implodes as everyone finally sees him for what he is, leaving us with Gingrich, Santorum and Paul. Yes, still no ‘perfect’ or relatively close to ‘perfect’ conservative, but that field sounds a loud more promising than a field with Romney. Where would Romney voters go, Santorum by default? The way the race has progressed so far I think Santorum would be wise to stay in, even if his dropping out would help Newt.

Santorum doesn’t have the structure or money to endure, as I see it. And I don’t think he could necessarily beat Obama, being “too evangelical” for many, besides coming out of relative political obscurity anyway. His “accomplishment” is that he spent months on the ground in Iowa, and squeaked out a win after Romney’s hired guns and media talking heads shot down Gingrich.

SC was a more fair head to head, with PAC money still heavily against Gingrich. Yet even evangelicals seemed to have gone for Newt there. Florida voters might decide a Santorum vote is wasted, but 5-15% might be what swings 50 delegates from Newt to Mitt in a critical vote.

If Santorum doesn’t see a big swing soon, he should “pull a Perry” and endorse Newt three to seven days before the Florida primary. Gingrich was presidential in his speech last night … Santorum fought hard, but should recognize his tide has gone out. SC shows the base he should have won has overwhelmingly chosen Gingrich as the not Romney.

The sooner Santorum is gone, the better. I could never have supported him.

What else?

How about that Santorum would be a better candidate than Newt? He’s a staunch conservative so the conservative base should be happy with him. He has a keen ability to connect with the sort of “Reagan Democrats” and centrist voters whose support will be crucial. And he’s not pulling Newt’s very heavy baggage train, nor has he a history of shooting himself in the foot.

What Santorum has been most crippled by is lack of money even for his super PAC. But then, isn’t the lesson from Newt of the past two weeks that money isn’t everything?

    Midwest Rhino in reply to JEBurke. | January 22, 2012 at 1:06 pm

    But Newt DID do it without a lot of money, AND a LOT of money against him. In the same environment (SC) … Santorum did NOT do it.

    Anchovy in reply to JEBurke. | January 22, 2012 at 9:14 pm

    No what Santorum has been most crippled by is Santorum and an electorate that recognizes him for what he is.

No insider info, but instinct tells me that Santorum is being courted for VP by Mitt and Newt. A respectable showing (say, 15%) in FL makes his support a very valuable thing–enough, perhaps, to get to 50% nationally. Then the frontrunner can tell Ron Paul to get lost and take his flying monkeys with him.

That’s the mathematical argument. The political argument is that the nominee restores some credibility with the conservative base that Santorum is perceived as a better representative of.

Santorum is not quite ready to mix it up in presidential politics. Veep is the perfect place to get ready for the big time. He must know he can’t make it on this go-round on the top of the ticket, so it’s the smart move for him.

I hope he stays. I’m on the fence about Gingrich. On one hand, hearing him talk is very satisfying, and I’m kind of a sucker for people who can express themselves well. He does have a lot to show for his term as a Speaker. On the other hand, Gingrich is erratic. Sorry, Professor Jacobson. His attack on Bain was uncalled for, and he did himself much harm by going negative on a fellow Republican and by attacking him from the left. I don’t think he’ll get another chance if he errs again.
If Newt does get the nomination, will Santorum get the Veep spot? Secretary of State? Newt said he’d make John Bolton his Secretary of State, but Bolton endorsed Romney. Does it matter to Gingrich?

    Henry Hawkins in reply to edgeofthesandbox. | January 22, 2012 at 4:55 pm

    Wondering about VP lists and cabinet posts is perhaps premature in January just three primaries in. The GOP nominee will run against more than just Obama. The GOP nominee will run against the entire liberal artifice, which is to say, nearly the entirety of the news and entertainment media. Who seems the best able and willing to face up to the liberal forces?

    Romney is the pick of the GOP establishment, the same structure and approach that produced the following: Bush I, Bob Dole, Bush II, John McCain, and now Mitt Romney. These folks all share one trait beyond being centrist moderates – none of them would say boo shit against liberalism.

    Newt Gingrich, in just three primary events, has already done more to serve notice to liberalism that the conservatives are coming after them than all of the above listed GOP establishment-picked candidates combined.

Yes I think Santorum should drop out. I strongly dislike him because he’s a sanctimonious goofball and comes off a bit sleazy.

Santorum’s got social conservative credentials (barring his support of Arlen Specter), but Santorum isn’t really a ‘conservative’. More of a collectivist big government statist, in his own words:

“This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone.” [source]

“What was my vision? I came to the uncomfortable realization that conservatives were not only reluctant to spend government dollars on the poor, they hadn’t even thought much about what might work better. I often describe my conservative colleagues during this time as simply ‘cheap liberals.’ My own economically modest personal background and my faith had taught me to care for those who are less fortunate, but I too had not yet given much thought to the proper role of government in this mission.” –Rick Santorum, p. IX It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good (2005)

“I suspect some will dismiss my ideas as just an extended version of ‘compassionate conservatism.’ Some will reject what I have said as a kind of ‘Big Government Conservatism.’ Some will say that what I’ve tried to argue isn’t conservatism at all. But I believe what I’ve been presenting is the genuine conservatism our Founders envisioned. One that fosters the opportunity for all Americans to live as we are called to live, in selfless families that contribute to the general welfare, the common good.” –Rick Santorum, p. 421 It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good (2005)

“If you’re a conservative, there really is only one place to go right now. I would even argue farther than that. If you’re a Republican, if you’re a Republican in the broadest sense, there is only one place to go right now and that’s Mitt Romney.” –Rick Santorum, 02/1/2008 [source]

Santorum also supports SOPA-like measures: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5iY5Sll72k

For the general case, I don’t see why Santorum should drop out, unless he runs out of money, or runs up a string of terrible performances, on the order of less than 10% of the vote in every primary.

Isn’t that the point of a primary season, so give a wide variety of candidates to run?

BannedbytheGuardian | January 22, 2012 at 7:30 pm

Don’t know. but vests are in for a revival . Jacquard patterns atop white linen shirts & pleated baggy pants.

Yep The Great Gatsby is coming again . Swoon .

Oh & Rick’s vests are daggy.

Rick Santorum SHOULD stay in the race. Even if he has NO chance at winning, his ideas need to be heard in the debates. I’m no fan of Ron Paul, although I AM a fan of his ideas on the Fed, the Gold Standard, making Congress follow the Constitution. I’m no fan of the idea of abandoning our international allies… we already have a President who’s doing that.

But the longer the ‘fight’ stays in the news, the more the Republican message gets out to the public. As soon as there is a consensus candidate, and I mean the HOUR they decide there is one, the Press will stop reporting what the Republicans have to say, and will start reporting what the Democrats want them to say.

So keep all four in, says I. It’s the best way for the Republican message to get to the folks on the coasts.

The fact is no one has an incentive to get out because they are all doing well in the areas they should. Romney in the northeast, Newt in the South, Santorum in socially-conservative states, Paul in caucus and independent-heavy states. There will be no state that delivers a death-blow to any candidate. Instead, the delegate count will slowly mount and eventually there will be one or two frontrunners in delegates.

Just as it should be, in my opinion. The primary system is meant to give Republicans in every state a chance to voice their opinion, not to rubberstamp a media-anointed nominee.

TeaPartyPatriot4ever | January 23, 2012 at 4:15 am

Should Rick Santorum drop out before Florida primary?

I personally believe that is not my, or any other person’s right to make, or force Rick Santorum to do, to drop out of any race, as that is his sole decision alone.

Opinions aside, if he were to do so, great, if not, great. That’s what being in a Democratic election process is all about, the people, NOT the strategists, tacticians, speculators, pundits, prognosticators, politcal or otherwise..

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend