Pragmatism vs Ideology

I rarely like the internet political quizzes, because frankly most of the questions suck. I found one that I really liked that was as close as it gets. I Side With. It gives "yes" and "no" answers, but also other choice "C" answers as well.

The Results:
Gary Johnson - 96%
Mitt Romney - 76%
Virgil Goode - 64%
Rocky Anderson - 16%
Jill Stein - 10%
Obama - 5%

Romney on social, Johnson on the rest.

I'm not that surprised except that I usually don't score as high with libertarians and my marks with LP/RP are both in the 70-75% range with the rest under 25%. They didn't ask trade questions which skewed it away from the populists more.

However, I didn't write in Johnson. No, Romney wasn't my first choice. Like many, I didn't like the coronation attempt between Foxnews and also the rules changes for Mitt. On the same note, I didn't care for EITHER side in the Ron Paul vs Romney dual coronation attempts. In Romneys defense, he at least won a majority of the primaries. Luckily for Romney, I want Obama fired. In Ron Paul's case, I voted for him in 08, but not this year. The coronation push alienated me. The RNC and Paulite gamesmanship didn't look good for either side in Tampa. The former didn't need to spike the football. The latter has no business claiming anything until it won enough actual primaries (at any level, let alone presidential) to contend. My candidate lost too. It sucks. It happens.

Would I like to see more liberty candidates in the GOP? In some areas, if they aren't too hung up on technicalities. There's no way a candidate who claims to be a libertarian (and pro-life) republican would vote against defending planned parenthood. Or vote against national CPL reciprocity, all while incorrectly (especially on the CPL) claiming "constitutional" grounds (Full Faith and Credit). There are times due to language where a bill should be voted down, or amended. There's also times when there's nothing wrong with the bill's language. If you claim to really be a liberty candidate, be for liberty, don't just fall on your sword when the end result of that is less liberty than before. 

I realized over my years that 3rd parties are a protest vote. No more, and no less. If Teddy Roosevelt can't win as a 3rd party, no one can. I used to vote about 1/3 R and 2/3 L when I was a new voter, then considered myself independent. I have protested vote or 'voted for blank' on occasion, although I am less apt to do so than in my early years. This year was a bit of an exception as I did leave a few more of the uncontested races blank than normal with Green Oak pushing another millage. Again.

Many of the Paul hardliners are either writing in Ron Paul or voting for Johnson. Some are doing so because they really like Gary Johnson and damn the torpedoes. I can understand that. A couple of my family members took that stance. No games are involved there and they can't bring themselves to support either candidate.

Then, there's this mindset by some. "You didn't let us take over the party, so we're going to spite you and hope you lose to a 48-49% Obama so you'll be forced to come back begging to us." Ain't gonna happen. Even if Obama won due to Johnson votes, it ain't gonna happen.Two words. Ralph Nader. Nader's name since 2000 among democrats is mud. Ron Paul's name (as he'll get the blame) will be mud if Obama wins with 48-49%. There won't be begging, but a declaration of political war. 

Some people like Herman Cain are clamoring now for a 3rd party. All I have to say to that is the following. 
1. How will the third party get enough support to win?

"“I never thought that I would say this, and this is the first time publicly that I’ve said it: We need a third party to save this country. Not Ron Paul and the Ron Paulites. No. We need a legitimate third party to challenge the current system that we have, because I don’t believe that the Republican Party … has the ability to rebrand itself,” Cain said."

It is so easy to say "We'll get a new conservative party and the conservatives will join us and all will be well." The problem is that it's all bullshit. Third parties failed, have failed, and always will fail. Teddy Roosevelt, Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Virgil Goode, John Anderson, George Wallace, Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan all failed as 3rd parties. In order for a 3rd party to be relevant, one has to be competitive in 34% of the seats in congress or compete for a majority in a electoral college. Ain't gonna happen.

Steve Schmidt also has his head up his ass. That's not surprising. He was McCain's campaign manager. We all know how that went. I could have done a better job than that clown in 08. I doubt I would lose Indiana at least. That takes work in a presidential election.

“When I talk about a civil war in the Republican Party, what I mean is, it’s time for Republican elected leaders to stand up and to repudiate this nonsense [of the extreme right wing], and to repudiate it directly,” he said.

Screw off, Steve. We just ran a moderate. We ran a moderate before that in 2008. Your boy McCain. Hell, Bush was a moderate, at least fiscally. What we need is to repudite bullshit like what you are slinging to try and salvage your incompetent reputation.

Conservatives can win. Conservatives can win in moderate or even liberal districts. Moderates can win. Moderates can win conservative and liberal districts. They both win by not doing a Steve Schmidt and putting their big mouths away and by doing their jobs properly on constituent issues and being competent people. That's what's most important. Don't be incompetent like Steve Schmidt was in his election work. Don't be a dumbass like Todd Akin (establishment, Huckabee wing). Don't be a dumbass like Richard Mourdock (Tea Party). They made the same error. Don't be something that you aren't. I think Mitt would have done much better in the primary if he was just who he was. I think that came out in the first debate.

Be who you are. Be competent at what you do. Be tactically smart and principled. Have a good plan. That's the starting success to build from at any level.  Pick fights when you must, but not when you don't have to do so.

Conservatives need moderates (true moderates, not leftists). Moderates need conservatives. Tea party needs establishment. Establishment needs tea party. Right now, we don't have the leverage. We need to create it and create it now, so Obama doesn't spend the next four years turning this country into Chicago.  

It's gutcheck time, Mr. Romney. Are you in or out?

Right now the Romney campaign and their team is at a crossroads. I'm hearing two different rumors conflicting with one another right now. With about a week before the absentees (34% of the vote) and a little less than a month and a half before the November election, it's time for the campaign "experts" and advisors to take a close look at what they are doing, what they aren't doing, and adjust properly.

Now is the time to make a move, and by that, I mean a helluva lot more than just phone calls and lit drop n runs.

I've done a lot of campaign stuff, even after originally planning on doing nothing except my business stuff. Glutton for punishment I guess. I'm not a rookie, and not someone who just armchair quarterbacks after the fact. After 11 years on the inside with politics, I will call out incompetence when I see it. I also do not live in a bubble and come from a family with independents, democrats, republicans, and capital l libertarians. Most of them aren't that political outside of voting and following the issues.

One of the things I refuse to do however are political phone calls. I always thought they hurt us back in the day, and believe more so now. They are a waste of time, money, and resources - ESPECIALLY in a general election campaign. We all know Election Day is in November. People are tired of being called multiple times, from multiple organizations. We have the robocalls, the party calls, the superpac calls, money calls, etc. People don't like to be bothered 7-8 times. It pisses off voters who may very well take actions against that candidate. The insider asks "What are they going to do, vote Obama?" Probably not if it is a base voter (although some have said they will vote for who call them the LEAST), but that voter may very well say "go foxtrot yourself" and stay home, especially for the "electable" candidate that people aren't excited about in the first place. This isn't a race between Romney and Obama (and the 3% of 3rd party votes). This is a 3 way race between Romney, Obama, and staying home.  I don't think it is a coincidence that Romney has dropped in all polls after the major Super Saturday phone calls. Some think Paul Scott was recalled partially due to all the phone calls there as well. Romney always had trouble closing the deal. Don't close the deal against him by 7-8 phone calls. Phone calls also have diminishing returns with caller ID. I know the claim about how 7-8 calls help, but even if that was true then (which I doubt) it is certainly untrue for the past few years. I'll mention more on that after the election, win or lose.

The other thing you can't do is insult the base, especially with bad tactics. When you have hundreds of millions of dollars, you need to spend the money wisely. TV ads are only one part of the budget. Some, so they can bray about their large small donor base, are selling their signs (or giving them out to volunteers only). That's the current state of Romney's campaign in Michigan regarding signs. That is possibly the absolute stupidest idea I have ever seen in politics outside of Akin's comments and McCain and the overrated Karl Rove announcing their quitting to the world. Whoever had that idea has his head up his ass and needs to get fired and blacklisted so he is not an adviser on any campaign ever again. Signs belong on yards in front of houses, not right of ways. They belong out starting at this time, not just at polling locations on election day after 35% of the people already voted. Signs in front of houses build momentum which builds on itself transforming light blue states into late swing states forcing opposition to spend money on TV ads where they did not plan to do so before. Sign momentum and hard work with doors takes candidates who supposedly have little shot to win like Joe Hune in 2002 and have them win. You don't refuse to give them out to supporters and then sell signs to people in yet another nagging push to bother people for money - especially when they are used to just picking up signs. You give signs out, and tell people we're running out and need money to get more of these signs that you are seeing everywhere. People don't waste their money on losers. No signs on lawns = loser. Campaigns selling signs and refusing to give them out = loser campaign dragging down the entire ticket and causing insulted members of the base to stay home hurting all of us. Don't complain to the victory center directors. They are just the Indians and follow orders. It's the fault of the advisors and consultants who live in a bubble and have their heads up their asses. When you have hundreds of millions of dollars with fundraising, there is no excuse - none - for not having signs for any supporter that needs one. If county commission and township races can budget for signs properly, so can presidential.

Romney's campaign has to choose whether or not to be a winner or a loser. I'm hearing two different possible scenarios, one I won't say good but not bad. The other scenario is McCain 2008 in its operation.  This race will be won or lost likely in the next two weeks. If it is doing the same thing it is doing now, it's game over. I'm hearing conflicting reports in the direction it takes. I've also learned a few things from the past several years.

1. Do not donate to non-local Superpacs or National Organizations. They are run by Washington/Maryland/Virginia and Washington/Maryland/Virginia style consultants in a bubble who don't understand reality. If they can't run things properly, they aren't worthy of our money. We don't work for the party. It's supposed to work for us.

2. LONG TERM - Local parties and organizations needs to be self sufficient and if that steps on a few national toes, TS. Every local and district party should have an active federal FEC and state/local Secretary of State account so we don't let national decisions hurt us down the ticket. Since it has been shown over and over again that National doesn't do things properly, we have to take care of things ourselves and be ready and able adapt to all situations. It's time for our political party money to stay home and not go to Ohio. Those local resources then need to be spent our way and on our terms. Precinct Delegates elect local and (through state convention district caucus) district leadership. We can control our party. It's time we take control in case another national campaign does a McCain and hangs us out to dry.

As far as this goes regarding Romney, I've heard two different scenarios. I don't know if he will do a McCain. He was on a lot of damage control because of the overrated Karl Rove's comments regarding Pennsylvania. Right now regardless of what decision he makes, the momentum is against him. The pundit class has him required to run the table to have a chance to win. That's an unacceptable premis that needs to be changed. It CAN be changed because elections aren't in September. Romney needs to - at worst - make sure Obama has to fight in the light blue states, much as Obama did in Indiana back in 2008, and even Bush in 2000/2004 in a pre Chris Christie New Jersey. If Obama dictates the fight, it's game over.

Romney needs some specific plans that are more than talking points, and needs to create momentum. He needs to put signs up in all those sign locations that requested. ASAP. That encourages supporters. Don't sell them. Don't play games with them. Do your job and let your workers and volunteers get their guy elected. 

Are you in or out, Mitt? I'll find out in the next weeks.

Pick your battles - is it worth it?

There's a lot of inside baseball dust ups and gamesmanship going on right now with RNC convention away from the speeches. There's plenty of blame that could be spread around, and a lot of it could be avoided with common sense.

I preface this by saying the following. I voted for Ron Paul in 2008 and Rick Santorum in 2012 during the primaries. I held my nose and voted for McCain in 08 and will be holding my nose and voting for Romney this year to get rid of Obama, Eric Holder, and the rest of his cabinet. I don't consider myself a "Paulite" and don't follow his supporters 100%  I don't consider myself one that always sides with - or against - "leadership." I call things as I see them. I don't like coronations on any side. Pushing a coronation on me is a good way to get my opposition. That was one of the reasons I did not support Romney - or Paul - in this year's primary. Coronation tactics and takeover tactics. Make your case and I'll make my own decision. That's why we have primaries.

Many conservatives, and almost all the Ron Paul supporters went apeshit at this vote at the RNC convention. Now I support the first part of the rule 16 (primary binding), but not the second part with disavowing if the candidate and state party does not support them. I would support the disavowing for the presidential vote at the convention, but not the other votes with the other committees.

I have three problems with the rule.

1. HOW it was enacted. That's shown at the video posted at Right Michigan Bus games, and an Obama style script from a teleprompter wasn't needed.

2. Would the disavowing delegate occur for the presidential vote only, or for the rules committees and other stuff as well?

3. It wasn't needed. Mitt already won and had the votes. This was probably about avoiding future floor fights from the camera. Now I don't like airing stuff in front of cameras or even in public meetings. If I have a problem with a leadership decision, I'll usually give my gripes in private behind the scenes. It's more effective that way. On the same note, in the era of youtube, that's impossible to do no matter what if something is taped.

But in reality, this doesn't do that much, except potentially protecting themselves from laziness. It wasn't needed and Mitt had the votes. This is a much different era of primaries in 2012 than it was in 1976 with the rise of the internet, cable news, talk radio, and everything else. People harken back to the brokered convention in 76. That was 36 years ago. I wasn't born yet. I've seen a lot of changes in primary elections just in the years I've followed politics.

If you want a "tea party" or "liberty candidate" as the video says - to win, you plan this long before the convention.

This wasn't nearly as bad as the extra delegate which cost Saul Anuzis his position as RNC committeeman. That wasn't needed either and in the end didn't make a difference, but could have potentially been a much bigger problem. I like Saul and he's a good guy who's done a lot for grassroots that is overlooked, but that was a bad decision. We all make them at some point.

What both of those things where -  was equivalent to Terrell Owens celebrating on the Dallas Star at Cowboy's stadium in an infamous football game. 

This was stupid. It wasn't needed. It didn't do much of anything except rub it in the faces of people the leadership do not like. It's bad tactics, just like hostile takeover attempts from the other side are also bad tactics. It's short term thinking that is a long run failure.

I'm repeating myself with this one phrase. "It wasn't needed." Certain people in leadership didn't need to pick the battle. No good was going to come from it. There's other battles that didn't need to be picked. That's not limited to one side either. Some of the Ron Paul folks wanted to try and get a floor fight to replace Romney as the nominee. They lost it after they lost the primaries with their candidate finishing way back in the pack. Shit happens. My candidate lost too. Take your lumps like we did. On to the general election and it's time to improve through downticket races and gaining support of voters so more parts of our platforms become enacted - long term.

Now some (not all) of the Paul supporters want Obama to win out of spite through 3rd party votes in the hopes that future candidates would beg them for support. That won't get support and will cost immensely. That would get the entire Paul movement smashed forever and destroyed by any means necessary - and most conservatives would join in the smashing because as much of a problem Romney is, Obama is that much worse. It won't be "We can control the election, you need us" like some of them want. It will be "F-you. Obama won or almost won. You helped him. Time for your movement to die." If you become viewed as poison, everything you touch - including your issues - also turns to poison because will be tied "with those people."

The most important thing in politics is relationships. While it is inevitable that bridges sometimes get burned, it's important to avoid it when it is avoidable. I've had good relationships with people in the party despite at times being in heated disagreements. We both understood the reasons for our actions, and while there was even some hard feelings at the time, it wasn't personal. They weren't my enemy, and at the end of the day they didn't help THE enemy. Helping the enemy however, is a whole other matter. That's as cardinal of a sin as backstabbing. I will never ever forget the bastards and pieces of trash who were "conservatives" or "republicans" for Obama in 08. They helped give us Obamacare, the stimulus, Eric Holder, bad SCOTUS picks, tax increases, record debt, record deficits, and a vastly increase government. The establishment can't smash those who support different primary candidates, especially those who are willing to work within the party. Those that lose - whether it be the "moderates" (by far the worst offenders), libertarians, Paul supporters, conservatives, or anyone else need to suck it up and not campaign and use threats to spite the winner.


The reality however is this. None of the gamesmanship was needed, nor effective in their goals. In reality, it didn't do much, if anything. It did not effect the outcome. If you want to elect a presidential candidate in the primary, convention is only one small portion of it. You have to win enough delegates in the primaries and caucuses in enough states. RNC rule changes only affect a small portion of this, usually with scheduling of primaries. Most of the power is done through the state level through state committee and also with the state legislature/governor.  Even a lot of the scheduling is done there. 

The way to stop the bad stuff is to make sure we have good committeemen and good state chair and state committee members, and make sure other states do the same thing. That's how bad rules get stopped.  It starts locally, but electing good precinct delegates, executive committee members, county officers, district committee and officers, and state committee members, along with RNC committee members is how it is done. It's long term, and takes a lot of organization, recruitment of good candidates for those positions, and reaching out to swing voters that make decisions. 

Also, there's statutory members automatically on those exec committees. They are your county elected officials (or nominees). Those are important people and will always some of the power regarding county officers. That county commissioner race is important. 

I've been at this 11 years. Some have been around longer. Many have not. Most don't know how to organize. Most who do know how to organize don't know how to convince the swing voters and alienate them (happens with all cliques) with takeover attempts and power grabs (or what seem like them), and airing stuff to the media that should be handled in house. There's battles to fight. There's battles not worth fighting. All or nothing is a failure. Picking the battles at the right time after paying one's dues with the party, is the correct way to handle things. 

In other words, all sides need to think long term, swallow their pride, don't celebrate like TO did, pick the right battles, and stay cool.

Vote Mitt Romney. He sucks less.

Damn this sucks. Santorum's suspending his campaign, so this one's over. Newt hasn't won since Georgia so he's done. Ron Paul won't get enough delegates either. The primary is all but over and we're stuck with Romney.

Romney's my last choice among the primary participants. He's a Rick Snyder type. I hold no illusions that he's a conservative or even a moderate. I'm not going to spin him as anything else than what he is, someone who sucks, but sucks less than Obama. Maybe he'll flip our way a couple of times, but I'm not counting on it based on his Massachusetts record. I better be wrong and he be this 'electable' guy that the chattering political classes thinks he is. If he isn't, I'm going to rub it in everybody's face next time it's said about their candidate.

Unfortunately, the devil we do know IS that bad. Romney won't have such "luminaries" like Tim "Goldman Sachs" Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius (HHS Mandate), Steven Chu (energy), Ken Salazar (dept interior), Janet Napoliantano (DHS), Lisa Jackson (EPA), and worst of all the Janet Reno clone Eric Holder as the Fast and Furious AG. Hillary Clinton is probably least worst there in his administration. Those people will be fired under a Romney administration. That's not to say his people will be great, but they can't be worse than Holder, Napoliantano, or Sebelius.

Kagan and Sotomayor are his SCOTUS picks. We don't need four more years of that. What's next? Cass Sunstein? Erwin Chemerinsky? Stephen Reinhardt? Jennifer Granholm? Romney MIGHT give us a Souter. Romney may surprise us and give us a Roberts. The Commonwealth PAC donated to Justice Corrigan's campaign so there's some chance.

The big issue once again is the Supreme Court. This is the only reason I'm willing to hold my nose, even for a Rick Snyder type like Romney. We MIGHT be finally starting to reign in the abuses under the commerce clause some and at least limit if not overturn the awful Wickard v Filburn decision (and Gonzales v Raich).

These are age of our justices. There is a good possibility that the next president will appoint four justices.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg - 79
Antonin Scalia - 76
Anthony Kennedy - 75
Stephen Breyer - 73
Clarence Thomas - 63
Samuel Alito - 62
John Roberts - 57
Sonia Sotomayer - 57
Elena Kagan - 51

With four justices in their 70's, if three of the four are replaced by libs in their 50's, we'll have a 20 year plus voting block there much like how there was with the Burger Court (which was actually much worse than the Warren Court). Reagan moderated the court with his three picks. Bush I was a wash with Souter and Thomas. Clinton moved it left replacing White with Ginsburg, although Blackmun/Breyer was a wash. Bush II gave us Robers and Alito over O'Connor and Rehnquist, moving it slightly right. Obama's two picks have been a wash, replacing Souter and Stevens.

So, just as I said back in 08 when we were stuck with McCain, and now the worse Romney.........



Time to defeat Mr. "nose up in the air" Obama and serve him up some much needed humble pie.

Did 100,000 democrats actually cross over 3-1 for Santorum in the Michigan primary? I don't believe they did.

One of the big pushes from Romney surrogates in Michigan is that due to sites like Daily Kos and a Santorum robocall, that 100-120,000 democrats voted in the Michigan primary to create mischief like the case with McCain in 2000. The source that is used is exit polling from CNN. I do not begrudge the surrogates for using exit polling as a source. On a lot of things, it is good. I think the polling was close with a lot of factors. That aspect I am doubting. I also highly suspect that it is being used as quasi-justification for awarding that extra delegate to Romney after the fact.

Even if the 100,000 democrat crossover is true, I don't have a lot of sympathy for it. This year. The reason being is that the party chose an open, or a closed in name only primary with same day choice of ballot. There's no party registration in Michigan either. I've long argued against an open primary when there is no contest on the other side. It only works when there is a competitive race on both sides. Presidential primaries are much different than August counterparts when both sides usually (although not always) have contests of their own.

So why don't I think 60,000 votes out of the 377,000 cast for Santorum came from democrats? Actual election returns. If you look at Michigan maps, especially 2004, you'll see how many counties votes for democrats and how many voted for republicans, along with which ones. A lot of the democrats in Michigan are concentrated in a few areas. This can be seen with the congressional districts. Most of the democrat districts, especially under the new allocation, are 60% or more democrat. All of those districts except the 13th district, votes for Romney, not Santorum. Most of the Republican held districts voted for Santorum.

GOP held Districts:
CD 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 - Santorum
CD 8, 11 - Romney

Dem districts:
CD 5, 9, 12, 14 - Romney
CD 13 - Santorum

That alone doesn't tell the whole story. There are pockets of democrats in the republican districts and pockets of republicans in the democrat districts, but it is not hard to find samples in democrat areas. One thing is clear, most of Santorum's votes were from Republicans. Most of Romney's votes were also from Republicans. Democrats don't win Livingston County in primaries. Democrats don't win Ottawa County in primaries.

I'll start with Pontiac and Auburn Hills. Why? Pontiac is a democrat stronghold in Oakland County. It's 80% democrat every election. It also was ground zero for an open state rep election and charter issue as well, so there is a reason for the democrats to vote there besides mischief. Here's the results for that state rep district, strictly in Pontiac itself, followed by Auburn Hills, a democrat leaning area, but not nearly on the same scale. Republicans often get 45% of the vote there, although McCain bombed and Obama broke 60% there.

Pontiac:
Tim Greimel (D) - 88.10% - 5,746
Bob Gray (R) - 11.90% - 776

Auburn Hills:
Bob Gray (R) - 50.53% - 1,338
Tim Greimel (D) - 49.47% - 1,310

Gray overperformed in Auburn Hills, probably due to the presidential primary. Here's the primary results in both areas there.

Auburn Hills: (population about 21,500)
Romney - 743 - 40.23%
Santorum - 639 - 34.88%
Paul - 279 - 15.23%
Newt - 117 - 6.39%
Obama - 782 - 93.65%
Dem Uncommitted - 53 - 6.35%

Pontiac: (Population about 59,000)
Santorum - 575 - 41.01%
Romney - 364 - 25.96%
Paul - 317 - 22.61%
Newt - 92 - 6.56%
Obama - 4881 - 97.72%
Dem Uncommitted - 114 - 2.28%

Most dems stayed home in their primary, even with just Obama there with "uncommitted". About 15-20% of Pontiac often votes Republican and about 45% of Auburn Hills often votes Republican. The Republicans in Pontiac are more likely working class social conservatives and small business owners. Those in Auburn Hills tend to vary. Auto executives are there, and it is also Tom McMillan's old stomping grounds before he went to the Rochester area. Both Romney and Santorum received more votes in Auburn Hills than Pontiac. Ron Paul was another story.

Here's one of the most Republican areas of Oakland County. Brandon Township. I'm going to follow that with nearby Oakland Township. They are both republican strongholds in Oakland County. There were not a lot of crossovers here. Both of these areas are consistently over 60% Republican areas.

Brandon Twp:
Santorum - 802
Romney - 775
Paul - 275
Obama - 135
D Uncommitted - 22

Oakland Twp
Romney - 1736
Santorum - 870
Paul - 271
Obama - 188
D Uncommitted - 17

Both of those are North Oakland Republican strongholds. The areas there are both republican areas voting for different republican candidates. One's a little more rural than the other, but neither are Bloomfield Hills where there is more of a homer factor.

Macomb County results varies some as well. The strongholds there are less like Pontiac and are whiter, with some republican pockets, and a lot of union independents. There wasn't a real pattern one way or the other.

Warren (about 60% dem):
Romney 4229, Santorum 4074, Paul 1337, Obama 3066, D uncommitted 638
Roseville's percentages were about the same as Warrens

Washington Twp (GOP Stronhold)
Romney 1932, Santorum 1347, Paul 355, Obama 376. D uncommitted 66

Utica (50/50)
Santorum 217, Romney 213, Paul 77, Obama 89, D uncommitted 28

Ray Twp (GOP Stronghold)
Santorum 261, Romney 250, Paul 74. Obama 53, D uncommitted 11

Overall Santorum won these areas:
GOP - Armada, Memphis, Ray, Richmond City and Twp
Dem - Center Line, Eastpointe,
Swing - Lenox, Utica

Santorum didn't win Roseville, Warren, or Mt Clemens which are democrat, nor Republican areas like Washington Twp, Shelby Twp, or Macomb Twp.

Obama had the most votes in Center Line, Eastpointe, Roseville, all narrowly.
Romney actually beat him in Mt Clemens. Both Santorum and Romney beat him in Warren. I think both candidates had their share of crossovers in these parts of Macomb County. Social liberals more to Romney and Social conservatives more to Santorum. I certainly didn't see a big push though one way or another, despite dem consultant Joe DiSano's advocacy of mischief.

Looking at another democrat stronghold. Washtenaw County.

Ann Arbor had less than 10% turnout outside of the 2nd Ward which is more republican than most of the city. That is a high money area, and went for Romney. The rest of Ann Arbor was mixed across the board, but hardly enough to manner. Some went to Santorum, some Romney, some Paul. Some of those were probably crossovers, but at less than 10% turnout, they could just as easily been those few republicans in the city.

Ypsi went narrowly for Santorum, but Obama had more votes there. The "rural" Ann Arbor Township precinct went for Santorum. That's also the Dominos Farms location. Whitmore Lake area went for Santorum. Augusta Twp (south of Ypsi) did as well. Probably not crossovers. Saline went for Romney. Probably not crossovers there either. These areas are matching about what I'd suspect.

I've look at different election areas across the state. I'm noting really out of the ordinary with vote patterns. 100,000 votes or even 65,000 in crossovers is very significant. If someone can point out where they would come from, I'd appreciate it. I don't see it. Not with Bay County and Saginaw County going for Romney, and if I was going to expect crossovers, it would be there.

I may be wrong and missing the forest for the trees here, but I don't see it. Exit polls are usually close, but not 100% in all aspects, and sometimes that is due to people lying. Voting results are what tell the truth.

Absotute Bullshit from the credentials committee

Flat out. This is legalized cheating. This is something that Richard Daley or Boss Tweed would pull. He's smiling from his grave. ACORN's cheering too.

From The Detroit Free Press

The Mitt Romney-Rick Santorum Michigan primary results just got a little more contentious.

Michigan’s two at-large delegates to the Republican National convention will be awarded to Michigan native Mitt Romney, following a vote last night by the state party’s credentials’ committee.

The vote came despite the party’s rules that the two at-large delegates are supposed to be awarded on a proportional basis based on the statewide popular vote. Romney won the statewide vote by a 41% to 38% margin over former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.

The rest of the state’s delegates will be split evenly between Romney and Santorum because each won seven congressional districts across the state.

This is the biggest example of why there's animosity between tea party groups and some committees within state party. If Santorum won the statewide popular vote, would you change the delegates after the fact? We all know the answer to that. Stick with the rules you made before the election. This is going to set off a firestorm among the grassroots, and also have repercussions in other states.

How is this going to factor down south (if they do the same for Santorum) or with states on Super Tuesday? Not very well. It will again feed into the perception (and reality here) that the elites are pushing Mitt Romney on us no matter what. It's bullshit. State committee as a whole needs to reverse this decision for their credibility, and stick with the original results. Procedures are important, and it's bad precedent, reminding me of a couple of convention votes (and cheating) from the old days before Saul Anuzis implements actual voting machines in voting. By this lame attempt to save face with a Romney "win" in Michigan, the credentials committee is getting egg on the entire state party, reflecting back on all members of party leadership down to district and county level. It's not worth one delegate.

This bullshit needs to be reversed ASAP. Kudos to Mike Cox and Eric Doster (election law attorney) for voting against this.

Post election Michigan analysis - Romney v Santorum

There's a lot of spin going on about this election. Santorum's claiming he won on election day. I think he's right. Pundits are claiming that Santorum collapsed from a 15 point lead on the last day. I think those are largely wrong. He never had a 15 pt lead here. There's also a lot of pissing and moaning about crossover Democrats (around 10% or so) and exit polls having Romney "Winning" republican voters.


As for crossovers, they may have mattered in the 13th district, but that's about it. ALL of the other major democrat districts went for Romney. 5th (narrowly - and Santorum won the Republican county), 9th (Levin), 12th (Dingell), 14th (Clarke/Peters). Romney won the 8th, 10th, and 11th held by Republicans, but the rest went for Santorum. Romney won the vote in Bay and Saginaw Counties. It's Tuscola that nearly cost him in the 5th.

Apparently, the at large was supposed to be split, but state party wants to change the rules for Romney so there isn't a tie here. (eyeroll). If Jason Gillman's right, This is the type of bullshit that pisses people off. It's the same reason I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever about Santorum courting Reagan Democrats, or getting crossover votes. Romney's supporters chose this system. They wanted the open or closed in name only primary. They wanted it because they were worried about a Pawlenty or someone else upsetting their favorite candidate and thought that Romney would ironically appeal to independents and democrats. I pushed for caucus when this was decided, and I support that now. I don't think democrats should vote in Republican primaries. However, I'm not going to get pissed off when it happens when it is preventable and the powers that be choose not to prevent it. T.S. Don't change things after the fact because your boy didn't get the win. This is why people get mad at party leadership. Santorum did best in the most republican counties, with the exception of Livingston, Atrim, and Emmet. Santorum won Ottawa, Allegan, Missaukee, Hillsdale, Barry, Branch, St Joe, Sanilac, Lapeer, Osceola, Wexford, and Kent. That ain't due to democrats.

The biggest lesson from last Tuesday was this. The election wasn't Tuesday. It was from 30 days before Tuesday that ended Tuesday. I also made one major miscalculation in my predictions. I knew seniors would go for Romney as did the absentees. The absentee vote was key. I don't know the exact percentages, and won't because some counties combine absentee votes with normal precinct votes in their reporting. Others don't. Here are some samples.

Macomb County:
Romney Election Day 23,188
Romney AV 14,650
Total: 37,838

Santorum Election Day 22,999
Santorum AV 7,219
Total: 30,218

Total AV's - 21,869 (32.13% of the vote between the two of them not counting others)

That was enough to flip the 10th District to Romney. Absentees probably flipped the 5th as well although I can't get good AV reports there.

Romney won Kalamazoo County 9671-9008. It was absentees that once again made the difference there. Even in areas Santorum won, he lost absentees. Some areas in K-zoo combined absentees. Some didn't. The REPORTED AS ABSENTEE vote went 2479-1052 for Romney. That alone was 19% of the vote and does not include about 1/2 of the municipalities so the closer AV number between the two of them was probably 25-30% Take away just the reported as absentee votes, and Santorum won K-zoo County 7956-7192.

Unfortunately, I can find good AV precinct data in interior Northern MI counties that voted for Romney narrowly, but from what I have seen so far, the AV's are at least 25% of the vote, and might be closer to 30% statewide. If that is the case, then the polling samples were way off earlier. The polls had 17% absentee estimates. Why the discrepancies?

Exit polls had Santorum winning those ages 30-64, Romney winning Seniors, and Ron Paul winning the 20-somethings. There isn't a lot of surprises. Santorum did best with those "most conservative" and those who strongly emphasized the life issue. It was the pro-life vote. That's in-line with most polling up through the elections. The senior sample thought should be higher. This is speculation, but the pollsters probably missed the snowbirds. A lot of the voters were probably in Florida. Florida already had their primary and Romney won. A lot of the snowbirds probably made an early decision and sent it in. Pollsters didn't reach them because they wern't home or at least the home where they are likely registered. Why would they be registered in Michigan? Property tax homestead exemptions. The millage rates are much lower with homesteads than a vacation home here.

Absentees are often 30%+ in a general election. Anyone running campaigns in Michigan need to remember that and start early. Romney did and won because of that. Santorum became a 'legitimate candidate' in Michigan on February 7th (hat trick win), after the voting already started in Michigan. His whole Michigan campaign was in three weeks. It's amazing he even competed here with two strikes against him (money and early voting).

Long story short. Don't forget the absentees.

Unofficial Michigan results by congressional district - Romney 16, Santorum 14

3rd Update 3-1 - Changing the rules after the fact gives Romney the extra delegate.

2nd Update 2-29 - Apparently the at large delegates will be split 1-1 because they were close. That means Romney and Santorum actually tied in Michigan.

Update 2-29 - According to MIRS, Santorum won 1-4, 6, 7, 13. Romney won 5, 8-12, 14.

I'd still like to see the Tuscola numbers. Surprised at 13 from the absentee numbers I saw, but knew it was close.

MIRS numbers:
Congressional District Vote Breakdown (according to the Michigan Republican Party).

1st: Romney, 32,252. Santorum*, 32,325.
2nd: Romney, 29,912. Santorum*, 39,900.
3rd: Romney, 31,999. Santorum*, 33,491.
4th: Romney, 27,117. Santorum*, 29,528.
5th: Romney* 21,691. Santorum, 20,837.

6th: Romney, 26,738. Santorum*, 31,126.
7th: Romney, 28,925. Santorum*, 30,133.
8th: Romney*, 32,930. Santorum, 25,234.
9th: Romney* 24,060. Santorum, 17,221.
10th: Romney*, 31,319. Santorum, 29,278.

11th: Romney*, 41,733. Santorum, 24,577.
12th: Romney*, 19,623. Santorum, 17,675.
13th: Romney, 7,946. Santorum* 9,481.
14th: Romney*, 18,157. Santorum, 10,844

-------------------------------

First off, ignore the Sec of State's website for delegates. It's supposed to be by the NEW districts, and not the old districts. CNN did a great job with the county map.

I ran some numbers. The obvious districts ones I'm going to just call. Districts 2 and 6 went for Santorum just based on looking. Districts 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14 went for Romney. I can't get a read on the 13th, so I'm going to assume it's Romney's unless I find results that say otherwise due to the 10,000 vote Romney spread in Wayne County. (Updated - Wayne County Precinct results are in. MIRS called it for Santorum.

District 1:
Santorum by about 590. Mason County wasn't included, but Santorum won it so I'll call it for Santorum.

District 3:
Santorum by about 1669

District 4:
Santorum by about 1982 (Saginaw's clerk numbers for district splitting)

District 5:
Depends on Tuscola County. Too close to call. ALL of Tuscola gives Santorum a 968 vote edge. With it, Santorum wins by 511. Without it Romney leads by 457. I can't call it. MIRS called it for Romney.

District 7:
I have Santorum up 930 not factoring in Scio Township. 1/2 of Scio Township is in the 7th, and it's the less democrat part, relatively speaking (Dexter side). Romney took the Washtenaw portion of the 7th by 865, not counting Scio. It's close, but I'm going to call the 7th for Santorum. - (Scio is in. Even with all of Scio included, Santorum wins by about 300-400)

District 13:
MIRS called it for Santorum. Crossovers may have won this one since I think Romney won (barely) the more republican areas due to absentee votes.

So right now as it stands:
Romney wins overall, CD 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14. Total of 16
Santorum wins CD 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 13. Total of 14.


--------------

What did I learn from this? Romney didn't win this election today. He won this election largely 30 days ago. Santorum may actually have won "today." The election wasn't only today though. Absentee voters skewed the polls off slightly, and turned what I expected to be 1% either way into an approximate 3% victory. Seniors according to an exit poll voted for Romney by 16%. Absentee voting went higher if the patterns I saw in Kent, Washtenaw, and Macomb Counties went statewide. I had a bad feeling when I saw a low turnout today at the polls, combined with heavy absentees for Romney. Romney polled well with seniors which concerned me because in elections, they often run the show and bring their pick the victory. That's not to any party's advantage in Michigan despite Obama's bad polling among seniors. Seniors would also be the folks who remember George Romney as governor where I'd only know the name from political history.

The other thing I thought was a mistake by both candidates was not visiting Livingston County. This is the 3rd most republican county by percentage in the state, and it was ignored. Romney won it, which isn't surprising because he DID visit Milford next door and has at least been here before. Santorum had a chance to introduce himself here and didn't do so. Many voters here relied on the news when defining Santorum. Many also did with Romney, but a lot of folks have met him or met someone who has met him, especially Oakland transplants. Advantage Romney.

This puts Romney in a good position for Super Tuesday, but nothing's set in stone yet. There's still a primary. Personally at this point, I'd like to see a brokered convention. I never thought I'd say that. I don't expect it to happen, but I think we'd get a better overall GENERAL election candidate from a convention than what we are saddled with today. Romney's organization saved his ass here today. It's his biggest campaign strength. The problem is that there's only so much that can be done with this flawed a candidate. Santorum didn't become a player until Iowa and then those three wins in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri (I think). He then did what he did in Michigan in only a month while taking a scorched earth blast from Romney. Will he recover or not? I don't know. I don't know if Newt's still in the game either.

After today, I'm rooting for the brokered convention. That's my new endorsement, long shot as it may be. Until the final decision is made, I'll be happy to go back to covering state level and local level stuff.

Thanks for the robocalls, Mitt Romney.

I got home yesterday and found five robocalls on my answering machine. So far, I've gotten three of them today with another four-five hours left. At least half of them were calls of the "vote for me, he sucks" variety. If Romney wants to portray himself as a fiscal conservative, I have two words for him. Fee increases. One more word. Romneycare.

I have not received one robocall from the campaigns or superpacs supporting Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, or Ron Paul. Nor even the usual offenders with leftist group American Family Voices. The only offender lately has been Romney's campaign or Superpac. The robocalls are usually bad this time of year, but the worst part is that this is ALL from ONE campaign - at least here in Green Oak Township, Michigan.

I'll be doing my best to teach Mitt a lesson by voting against him Tuesday and voting for Rick Santorum. In the meantime, could everyone please shut the hell up with these robocalls. I can't stand those things.

Don't insult my intelligence

Everyone that follows Michigan politics knows that Romney is the choice of most of the establishment. Nowhere is that more apparent than our congressional delegation. Only Justin Amash and Candice Miller have not endorsed Romney. Some of them are worried that Romney isn't doing well here. He may yet win Michigan, but it's going to be closer than they wanted. He may lose in the end. That will be decided the 28th.

Politico has a story about the concerns with Romney's campaign. I'm not exactly enamoured with the quotes from Dan Benishek and Bill Huizenga. I've met all of them on different occasions and like them, but they don't get it when it comes to Romney.

The problem, the members said, is simple: Romney has failed to stir the passions of the Republican faithful.

“There’s obviously an element out there looking for an alternative,” said GOP Rep. Bill Huizenga, a former state representative whose district encompasses part of western Michigan.

“I think it breaks back towards him, but he’s got to go earn it,” Huizenga continued. “He’s gotta go at it. He’s got to get everyone fired up.”

Rep. Dan Benishek, a freshman from the socially conservative Upper Peninsula, was more direct in assessing the challenge Romney faces.

“I wish he would be more passionate,” said Benishek, a former Herman Cain supporter who switched to Romney after Cain dropped out. “That’s always been my wish about Mitt.”

Wrong. It's not about passion. They make it sound like Romney can give a homerun speech and all will be well. No. That insults the intelligence of non-Mitt supporters. The problem is trust. The problem is that a lot of people do not trust Mitt Romney and do not believe what he says. That is the problem with flip-flopping too many times, especially right before you decide to run for president. ACTIONS count.

Tim Walberg's a little better on this, but still doesn't completely get it.

“I think Romney will have to explain to the pro-life community that he is true,” Walberg said. “Santorum, of course you can’t get past him on those issues. He’s 100 percent.”
....
“I think Santorum is going to have to contend with the same things that Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich have had to contend with, and the same things that Romney has had to contend with for the entire time,” Walberg said.

“I think Romney has been out there for a while now,” he added. “It’s always been suggested in the national media that Romney doesn’t have it for conservatives, and after a while people begin to believe that kind of stuff.”

I don't have to go to the national media to know Romney's record with conservatives. Romney's 1994 campaign against Ted Kennedy along with his 2002-2006 tenure as Massachusetts governor does the job. Romney signed a gun ban. Romney gave us Romneycare. Romney was "pro-choice" until he decided to run for president. He raised fees (taxes) as governor. Talk it cheap.

Rick Santorum isn't perfect, but I know what I'm going to get from Santorum. His 16 years of actions speaks for itself. Good. Bad. Ugly. I'd rather have that rather than gamble that Mitt won't flip-flop into Romney version 5.0.

Poll Update - 2nd PPP poll less of an outlier

Last Thursday, I had a post about the delegate process and listed polls and congressional districts.

I never thought Santorum was up 15 over Romney in Michigan. Most of the polls have it 4-10 pts. I think 4 is accurate, right now as things stand today. Will it change in a week? Possibly.

What I like about the PPP polls is that delegates in Michigan are chosen by Congressional District. All the polls are statewide only or listed by some regions. PPP used phone area codes. While that's not a perfect assessment of the polling by district, it does show a rough estimate.

Here's the latest from PPP


Area Code:
231 - 44-22 Santorum - West/NW MI. Muskegon to Traverse City
248 - 36-32 Romney - Oakland County
269 - 48-35 Santorum - Hastings, Battle Creek, Kalamazoo, St Joe
313 - 43-22-21 - Romney, Paul, Santorum. Big shift in Wayne County - Is this the Grosse Pointes or Redford/Westland? Paul vote is probably Dearborn.
517 - 40-33 Santorum - Big shift to Santorum. Lansing area, Western Livingston County, Hillsdale, Jackson.
586 - tied at 38. Macomb County.
616 - 37-35 Santorum - Grand Rapids, Holland, Ionia
734 - 40-29 Romney - Big shift to Romney. Ann Arbor, Ypsi, Southernmost Livingston County, Monroe. I'm not surprised here with Ann Arbor.
810 - 46-19-18 Santorum-Paul-Romney. Eastern Livingston, Flint area, Lapeer, Port Huron.
906 - 29-27-21 - Santorum-Romney-Paul - The UP. Small sample of numbers fluctuated here.
989 - 39-29 Santorum-Romney - From Saginaw to Northeastern Michigan.

Based on this:
Santorum takes - CD 1, CD 2, maybe 3, CD 4, CD 5, CD 6, CD 7, CD 10 (thanks to thumb),
Romney takes - CD 9, 11, probably 12, 14.
Tossup - My own 8th District and the 13th

These are the NEW districts that count, not the old one's. That could help or hurt Romney in a big way since the Bloomfield/Birmingham areas - his home base - are carved up into several districts.

The 9th has Southfield Township and Bloomfield Township.
The 11th has part of West Bloomfield, Bloomfield Hills, and Birmingham, as well as Troy.
The 14th has most of West Bloomfield.

Romney in all polls leads Oakland County. The question is where in Oakland. Oakland County is a big place, and doesn't think uniformly throughout the county.

Also the big shift his way in 734 and 313. Where was the 313 samples? I'm guessing largly Grosse Pointe, in the 14th district. Does Redford and Westland in the 13th lean the same way? I'll be somewhat surprised, but it's possible. The 734 numbers here reflect my more original thoughts. I don't see Ann Arbor or suburbs warming up to Santorum. I think Romney would also play well in Plymouth (11th District).

I see this going likely 8-4 Santorum with two up for grabs in the race for Congressional districts. If I got pushed into the corner, I'd guess Romney with the 8th and Santorum the 13th, both narrowly making it 9-5. I wouldn't be shocked at 8-6 or 10-4.

That's also if things don't change. A late surprise attack wouldn't shock me in the slightest.

Michigan's Delegate Process, Preview of race per Congressional District

There's a lot being said about Santorum taking the lead to some degree in most opinion polls. If Santorum wins Michigan, it will be gigantic from a PR, momentum, and fundraising standpoint. From an actual delegate standpoint, it's more complicated than that.

Michigan loses 50% (30) of the delegates for having the election before Super Tuesday. Part of the reason Michigan moved their primary up is because State Party wanted a primary and not a convention. By law in Michigan, elections are held only four days in a year (in response to MEA and school elections)

You can lose the state, and take more of the districts. From what I can find, delegates are apportioned in this fashion.

Two delegates selected at large proportional based on 15% of the vote. I don't know how that would work with two delegates.

Two delegates each, winner take all per NEW 2012 congressional district. These are the new districts, not the current districts. A map of the new districts are here.

Quick rundowns:

Mitchell Poll - Santorum up 17% in Grand Rapids Media Market, 9% in Non Detroit Media Market, 7% Detroit Media Market.

Detroit News poll - Comment - "Oakland County is an island for him"

MRG Poll - Santorum up 3 over Romney in Lansing media market, Santorum up 45 in the UP, Santorum up 18 in Traverse City Market, 16 in Grand Rapids Market, four in Detroit and Flint media markets. Romney up 8 in Oakland County. Tied in Macomb.


PPP Poll by Area Code:

231 - Santorum up 20. 231 is West and Northwest Michigan from around Muskegon north to Petoskey.

248 - Romney up 14. 248 is Oakland County.

269 - Santorum up 14 over Newt. West and Southwest Michigan from around Hastings to Battle Creek to Kalamazoo to St Joe to New Buffalo.

313 - Santorum up 10. 313 is part of Wayne County. Detroit, Redford, Grosse Pointes, Dearborn.

517 - Paul up 3 over Santorum and Romney. 517 is largely Lansing area, Jackson, Western Livingston County, and Hillsdale.

586 - Santorum up 15 over Newt. (Strongly contradicts PPP) 586 is Macomb County.

616 - Santorum up 13. Grand Rapids, Holland, Ionia.

734 - Santorum up 22. Ann Arbor, Monroe, Ypsi, part of Wayne County (Livonia), small part of Southern Livingston County.

810 - Santorum up 13. Brighton, Flint, Lapeer, Port Huron.

906 - Santorum up 22 over Newt. That is the UP.

989 - Santorum up 20. Saginaw, Bay City. Northern Lower Michigan.

M1-01 - North Michigan. As of now, it looks like Santorum's best district. 906, some 989, and some 231 area codes. It's a very blue collar area outside of parts of the Lake Michigan Coastline. The UP is conservative, but more than anything else despises phonies. McCain won most of this area in 2008. Advantage Santorum

M1-02 - West Michigan Coast, from Holland to Ludington. 616 and 231. Ottawa County is the most republican county in the state. It's going to drive this district. Muskegon County could factor in with crossovers and independents, along with the base. The rest of the district is rural populist. The life issue is BIG here. Advantage Santorum.

MI-03 - Most of Kent County, Ionia and Barry Counties, Calhoun County. 616, 231, 269. Ionia and Barry are rural populist. Grand Rapids suburbs will drive the turnout here. Calhoun County could impact things. Advantage Santorum. 

MI-04 - Rural North and Central Michigan. From Lansing's Northern border up to Cadillac and Roscommon. From Big Rapids to the Saginaw suburbs. Mostly 989, maybe some 231. Santorum should do well here.

MI-05 - This is a blue district, but just as important for delegates. Mostly 810 and 989. Genesee County, Western Tuscola County (important for GOP), Saginaw area, all of Bay County, Arenac County and Iosco County. White union crossovers and independents may be the key here in the Flint suburbs, some Saginaw suburbs, and especially Bay County and the Standish/Tawas area. There's a small GOP base area near Fenton (Frankenmuth's now in the 4th).

MI-06 - SW Michigan. 269 area code. The new MI-06 now has ALL of Allegan County which is just as republican as Ottawa County (Southern Allegan is competitive reducing the county percentage). All of the counties have significant GOP populations (Kalamazoo County is dem, but not ALL dem) to impact this district. District went big for McCain last time. Polls are showing Santorum up here, but it's tough for me to call. Upton wins here too. 

MI-07 - South Central and Eastern Michigan. 517 and 734. This district no longer has Calhoun County and picks up Monroe County. Monroe is quite populist and often hostile to a Romney type Republican. They usually (not 2010) like John Dingell types of democrats and Randy Richardville types of Republicans.  Much of the district is populist independent conservative. Romney's best hope here is a good showing by Ron Paul.

MI-08 - 517, 810, some 734, and 248. The 8th district changed some. It keeps Ingham County and Livingston County, but adds more of Oakland while dropping Shiawassee and Clinton Counties. That MAY help Romney. The question is this. Where in Oakland County, is Romney's strength? Is he leading based on across the board strength, or is it concentrated in the Bloomfields and getting drilled in places like Clarkston. The new 8th covers "North Oakland" is a lot different than what people think of when they think of Oakland County. There isn't a lot of difference between North Oakland and Livingston County when it comes to politics, even though Livingston has a much more conservative reputation. Both of those areas are social conservative, BUT also are fiscally conservative as well. I think the 8th is up for grabs. All candidates have strengths and weaknesses for this district. 

MI-9 - This is the new 9th, much like the old 12th. 248 and 586. It's now Macomb County based, while also taking in the white parts of SE Oakland County, as well as Bloomfield Township. This may have been Mitt's old home (or it could be the 11th). The question here is which poll is accurate with Macomb County. This is a blue district, but with a couple of significant GOP populations. Bloomfield Township, parts of Sterling Heights, and parts of St Clair Shoes and Clinton Townships. There's much more GOP vote here in Macomb County. If Mitt gets the GOP votes in Oakland all out and his way, he's going a chance at this. I bet he's up BIG in Bloomfield Township and Southfield Township (Bingham Farms). Edge Romney due to that.

MI-10 - 586, 810, maybe 989. This district is the home of Reagan Democrats. Northern Macomb County, and the thumb. Most of the votes here are in Macomb, but the thumb is also very important. Lapeer is a base county. St Clair is competitive. The rest of the thumb is conservative, but not necessarily Republican. I think Santorum will take the 10th.

MI-11 - 248, some 734. This district is a mix of mostly the old 11th and old 9th. Advantage Romney. It's mostly in Oakland County, along with some western Wayne County suburbs. It drops a lot of the union territory to Dingell or Conyers. This district has Troy, Bloomfield Hills, and Birmingham which gives Romney an advantage. Livonia's tougher to read and is a little more Reagan Democrat. Canton's very tough to read. Plymouth, Novi, and Northville areas are on paper more Romney friendly. I think the South Lyon, Highland, and Milford areas will be a little tougher for him. I'll be shocked in Romney loses here through.

MI-12 - 734, some 313. This district stretches across Southern Wayne County from Dearborn and Downriver to Ann Arbor. I was a little shocked to see Santorum win big in 734 territory according to PPP, but I think a lot of the republican vote here will be from West Dearborn and South Downriver. I think crossovers will decide this district. For whom is the question. Ann Arbor will likely cross over for Ron Paul. Downriver for Santorum (stick it to Romney).

MI-13 - 313, 248. This is a VRA district, but has a small and significant GOP base for a primary of this type. The Grosse Pointes. There's significant GOP minorities in Farmington Hills and West Bloomfield as well. I think Romney takes this district unless enough blacks cross over.

MI-14 - 313, 734. This is also a VRA district, but does into the more populist Western Wayne County suburbs. There's significant (for this district) republican minorities in Redford, Dearborn Heights, Westland, and Garden City. I think Santorum has an advantage there.

If things stand as they do today, I'd pick Santorum to win districts 1-7, 10, and 14. I'd have Romney winning 9, 11, and 13. I'd have the 8th and 12th up for grabs.

Is Santorum leading in Michigan?

The big news is that in Mitt Romney's birth state, Rick Santorum apparently took the lead in two polls. This means possibly two things. One, the polls are accurate. Two, the polls are not accurate. If they are accurate, then this is a snapshot of the electorate at this time. It does not mean that this will be the results on February 28th. At worst, this is great momentum for Santorum today. The future will be undetermined. Remember what I said about how early polls don't matter six months down the road. A lot of things change. Even in two weeks before I vote for Santorum.


Looking at the two polls - The first poll, by ARG, a Republican polling firm, has this:

Overall:
Santorum - 33%
Romney - 27%
Gingrich - 21%
Paul - 12%
7% undecided
+/- 4% margin of error. 4% is not bad for margin of error.

They also had crosstabs, and that's where it gets interesting between this poll and PPP's poll later:

Republicans (72% of the poll):
Santorum 42%
Gingrich 24%
Romney 18%
Paul 11%

Independents and Democrats
Romney 48%
Paul 15%
Gingrich 13%
Santorum 11%

Tea Party
Santorum 33%
Gingrich 28%

-------------------

PPP's numbers are different, and it shows most with Newt Gingrich:

Santorum 39%
Romney 24%
Paul 12%
Gingrich 11%
+/- 4.9% margin of error.

Republicans: (70%)
Santorum 38%
Romney 26%
Gingrich 12%
Paul 10%

Democrats: (4%)
Santorum 31%
Paul 31%
Gingrich 13%
Romney 11%

Independents (26%)
Santorum 42%
Romney 22%
Paul 16%
Gingrich 8%

One thing I found interesting was the area code polling. It's on page 47 of the crosstabs

231 - Western and Northwestern MI, Traverse City, Muskegon, Petoskey, Charlevoix
248 - Oakland County
269 - SW Michigan, Battle Creek, Kalamazoo, St Joe, Hastings, and Benton Harbor.
313 - Detroit, Redford, Grosse Pointes, Dearborn.
517 - Lansing, East Lansing, Howell, Charlotte, Coldwater
586 - Macomb County
616 - Grand Rapids, Holland, Ionia
734 - Ann Arbor, Monroe, Wayne, Ypsi
810 - Brighton, Flint, Lapeer, Port Huron
906 - The UP
989 - Saginaw, Northern Lower Michigan

It's going to be an interesting two weeks here. Santorum is making a run here. Romney's coming back here to try and salvage something he thought was going to be easy here. We'll find out when the results are in. If I'm Santorum, I'd be going after the absentees now. The voting actually begun for the 2-28 primary.

I'm voting for Rick Santorum in the primary

It's down to four people. Nobody will likely drop between now and the 28th. The four left are Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum.

Perry's out, and I'm not going to vote for a dropped candidate. That's like voting for uncommitted which is out of the question. Uncommitted means I'm passing my delegate vote off to someone unpledged. An unpledged delegated will support whoever he's asked to support. The only time I'd vote for uncommitted is if I don't care.

It's no secret my views towards Mitt Romney. The more I think about Gingrich, the most I just can't do it - for the same reason as Romney. Newt has a better record, but he's flipped so many times as well. I can't forget him and Pelosi together yapping about global warming. I can't forget about his scandals either. I can't trust him.

And trust is the biggest issue when appealing to all groups of voters. Romney and Newt are only electable if Obama beats himself. That's probably true to a degree for all candidates. A poll nine months out does not show anything about electability IN NOVEMBER. What some Romney defenders and Fox News types say is that he needs to move left to get independents. Bullshit. You don't move left - OR right - for independents or moderates. You move competent. Most independent voters and moderate voters care most about competence issues. The social liberal independent voters will sometimes vote for social conservatives - as long as the person is viewed as a competent individual and doesn't run his mouth too much. The mouth is what sometimes hurts social conservatives. The votes do not. Mike Rogers is not a social liberal. He's won Lansing before. City of. He's won Meridian Township, better known as Okemos. Social conservative and economic populist voters don't like panderers either and also care about competent issues. I throw trust in with competence issues.

Romney's record consists of tax/fee raising, gun bans, flip-flops and Romneycare. No deals. Newt's past I can forgive as a person. That's between him and God. However, that doesn't mean I trust him to keep his word to the voters. He's flipped too many times as well. He's out.

That leaves Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. I personally like both of these guys as people. I voted for Ron Paul in 2008. I like Santorum and I'd love to take about 50% of each of these two or split the difference on some of their issues and combine them into a candidate. I'm not nearly the foreign policy hawk Santorum is, nor the dove Ron Paul is. The last one I agree with more than not on policy was Reagan. For all the talk, there hasn't been a lot of difference on that from Bush 1 down to Clinton, Bush II, and Obama. Santorum would be little different there outside of talk.

I prefer Ron Paul on spending, although Santorum has voted for a balanced budget in the 1990's being part of the class of 94. He also supported Bush's budgets which aren't a good thing. I prefer Santorum on life issues. Ron Paul isn't bad there, but Santorum will go that extra step. Both are pro-2nd Amendment, but Paul will vote against good bills because they aren't perfect. I understand being a stickler of procedure at times, but national reciprocity is a big deal. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. That is where I split with Ron Paul. Pragmatism. Take what you can get with the circumstances, move in the right direction, and get the touchdown on a 2 yard run instead of the 80 yard pass when it isn't there. I don't forget bad votes on things like national reciprocity. All that does is codify full faith and credit.

The other issue is who can beat Romney and Obama. Ron Paul is an 10-25% guy in most states. He has his core following and is who he is. I think he needs to be taken seriously, especially on economic matters. Small "l" libertarians are, have been, and need to be part of the Republican coalition. A little respect - both ways - would go a long way of not blowing this opportunity to grow the party and the movement. However, he has shown so far that he can't beat Romney based on election results this year.

Santorum's weakness is 2006. He was crushed statewide in Pennsylvania. That was and is my major concern with him. However, he also won that same state twice, once in a non-republican year (in PA). 2000. He also won a democrat district (now Mike Doyle's) in the Pittsburgh Penn Hills area. You can make a case either way with electability with multiple wins and a bad loss in a bad year. The thing Santorum is showing now is that he's working his ass off with little money, and still winning some states. He recently got the hat trick. Minnesota, Colorado, and Missouri. He also won Iowa after the fact. Those are four very different states with very different demographics. He gaining, and Romney once again like in 2008 can not close the deal when everything is set up for him.

Next is Arizona and Michigan. Michigan's primary is an open primary despite what some say. You just have to declare a ballot. In 2000 there was about 20% crossover votes from democrats and I expect about the same here. Delegates are won based on the both proportional (statewide) and winner take all by congressional district. I believe the congressional districts for this are the new ones, not the old ones. There's also a second election on Feb 28th in the OLD 51st district. Paul Scott was recalled thanks to the very shady folks known as the MEA-PAC. Joe Graves should make this recall all for nothing outside of a three month vacancy. From what I've heard, he's good people and will do a good job. That election will increase turnout in the 51st district and the 5th Congressional District.

If I'm Santorum, I'd campaign across the entire state. However, I'd pay extra attention in these areas if I'm going to make a run for the delegates.

1. The 1st district. Most of it was neglected and did not vote for Romney in 2008. With independents able to vote, this will be a key area.

2. The 6th District. Another McCain/not Romney district in 2008. There's an opportunity there.

3. Ottawa, Kent, Livingston, Hillsdale, North Oakland, North Macomb, Lapeer, Allegan, and West Oakland Counties. That's the base area. It goes without saying that it will be important primary day. We all know that. I'm being Captain Obvious here.

4. The blue districts. Don't neglect them. Why? Because it's winner take all by congressional district. Even with an estimated 20% crossover vote (based on 2000 numbers) will have less votes and count more for the district delegates. Detroit won't have a lot of votes in the primary, but winning the two Detroit based districts will count more than say the 8th district, even though Livingston County alone will probably have more votes than both of them. Proportional delegates count too, but it's the districts.

The blue districts are as follows.

5th - Open with Dale Kildee retiring. This one is especially important with the increased turnout in the 51st, which includes much of the Republican base in the district. The other key areas are independents and social conservative crossover democrats in Flushing, Davison, Bay County (all of it now), and even Tawas City. There's an opening for a working class guy to appeal to some of these areas that Romney will likely have problems.

9th - Levin. This now is dominant in Macomb County. Romney will clean up Bloomfield Twp as it was his home, but there's some crossover votes and a sizable republican minority in Southern Macomb County. Posthumus won Clinton Township and St Clair Shores. Warren is 60% Dem, but has over 100,000 people. Sterling Heights is competitive.

12th - Now Dingell's district. Santorum will struggle in Ann Arbor for obvious reasons, but Downriver has a sizable Republican minority. Downriver is closer to 40-46% GOP compared to 20-25% in Ann Arbor.

13th - With the switch, John Conyers and a couple of challengers. It's about a 15% Republican district, so it won't take a lot of votes to win. Westland, Garden City, Redford, and Dearborn Heights are exceedingly important here, along with your minority of black republicans. There aren't a lot of them, but they do exist. A lot of them are social conservatives. Santorum is pro-life. The 3-10% here who do sometimes vote Republican can make a big difference in this district.

14th - With the switch, Hansen Clark with Gary Peters and Brenda Lawrence. This is also about a 15% district, but a little different than the 13th. There is a small GOP base here in the Grosse Pointes. Advantage Romney. Advantage Romney in West Bloomfield as well. This is the toughest blue district I think for Santorum to win.

Santorum should do well with pro-lifers. He'll probably split the gun vote with Ron Paul, although that reciprocity vote should damage him. It will be an uphill climb with Romney's top level organization and money. I think it's Romney's to lose, but I don't think he'll take all the congressional districts, and I think it will be much closer than people think.

Santorum didn't raise taxes. Romney raised "fees" as governor. Santorum is pro-2nd Amendment. Romney signed a gun ban. Romney implemented Romneycare. Romney's record on jobs is mixed at best. Romney became supposedly pro-life when he ran for president. Santorum not only votes pro-life, but lives it. He'd also appoint good justices to SCOTUS. Santorum was part of the late 90's growth where Clinton got the credit. Santorum was part of the class of 94 and Contract with America. He was there. Romney was a son of privilege. Santorum was a working class son of immigrants who earned a law degree and worked in private practice.

I don't have a perfect vote in the primary. I don't even have an easy vote. Perry and Pawlenty dropped. Of the four that's left, Santorum's the best we got and the best chance to upset Obama (yes, Obama is the favorite against all of them) this November.

I'll be voting for Rick Santorum on February 28th.

New Hampshire results

The second primary/caucus is in, and Romney won big with almost 40%.

With 87% in:

Mitt Romney - 39%
Ron Paul - 23%
Huntsman - 17%
Newt - 9%
Santorum - 9%
Perry - 1%

South Carolina is next. It'll be interesting to see if:
1. Any more folks drop.
2. Will there be a consensus opponent to Rommey. Right now it looks like this could end up being a Romney/Paul race. Huntsman made some noise, but he'd didn't break 20%. Santorum couldn't break 10% after Iowa.

The field sucks. Obama sucks more.

Who is the actual RINO? (2012 primaries)

I have a hit or miss view when it comes to Joe Scarbrough. Sometimes he gets it dead on and sometimes he is way off. This one here is quite good.

From Politico

The insult du jour for Republican candidates this election cycle is being labeled a RINO, a Republican in Name Only. Unfortunately, the insult has been so overused lately it’s been rendered meaningless. The insult is even emptier because it is so detached from actual statements, campaign promises and voting records.

A candidate like Newt Gingrich can get away with supporting the biggest socialist scheme in American government over the past 30 years because he says nasty things about the press and calls Barack Obama a Marxist. Jon Huntsman, on the other hand, can have a stellar conservative record as Utah’s governor, be anti-abortion and adored by the NRA. But if he refuses to spit out angry screeds against Obama, he’s dismissed as a RINO, the facts be damned.

So as a public service to POLITICO readers, I, your humble conservative servant, have put together a “Who is the Real RINO?” test. based on voting records, candidate quotes and facts! (Shocking, I know.)

Good luck!

1. Who said, “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose. I am not going to change pro-choice laws in any way”?

A. Mitt Romney

C. Newt Gingrich

C. Jon Huntsman

I got all but two of them right. Politico didn't line up page two properly, so one of the answered I picked Newt was Mitt. I also got the Rockefeller State Chair wrong.

It's biased, heavily towards Huntsman. However Newt is hit or miss, and we all know how Romney panders to every audience. Huntsman isn't AS BAD as his reputation which he got by taking a job as ambassador. That doesn't mean he's perfect. He's on board the global warming bandwagon and supported Cap and Trade in Utah which is an automatic two strikes against him. He spent too much as governor, although he did cut taxes. (Growth helped him in Utah) He supports civil unions for gays which I mildly oppose (tax money paying for it), but really don't have strong opinions about one way or the other on that issue. Many do. I do think he's the most electable in the general election however, and have said that since the beginning. I'm worried he's a Bush Republican, but we'll see.

Back in September, I was on board the Perry camp. It was an "anybody but Romney" move. I also didn't expect to see a collapse and implosion after the immigration comments and gaffes in debates over and over again. What I was looking for was the best alternative to Romney who can beat Obama. That's where my vote is going to go. Anybody but Romney who can beat Obama. Maybe Perry can recover. We'll see.

I'm not the only one in that boat. Especially post Obamacare/Romneycare, Romney, despite his money, organization, and an attempted coronation by the political class, so far can not bust through the ceiling. A lot of candidates are jockeying for position in this horse race, but Romney has in only one poll in November broke 30%. He did that once in October, three times in July, and once in June. At least 68% are looking for an alternative if you take his high recent numbers. That going off a bunch of polls showing similar results, not just a cherrypicked one. The 32% was high number.

In July, Bachmann and Romney were 1 and 2. Bachmann collapsed. In September, Perry consistently led. When Perry collapsed, Cain took the lead. When he collapsed, Newt's taking the lead. Newt Gingrich of all people is now the "anti-establishment" candidate. How is a former speaker and pundit non establishment? Because he's not Romney, the choice of the beltway. He was also their choice last time, more than McCain.

Some say the national polls don't matter. It's state polls. The real polls start in Iowa and New Hampshire in a little over a month. The state opinion polls aren't as often as national, but the results have generally been this:

Iowa (1-3) - Newt over Romney recently, before that Cain over Romney consistently. Ron Paul gets consistently 15%-20%. Romney peaks at 20%. Newt leads around 30%

New Hampshire (1-10) - Romney leads big. Almost all polls (one outlier has Newt leading) have him at around 40% A lot of Massachusetts transplants live in New Hampshire. Despite the reputation, polls had them voting for Bush twice. Other state transplants and natives costs Bush in 2004. The "Massholes" as they are often called are going to be deciding this one.

South Carolina (1-21) - The state that won it for Bush and McCain. Romney and Cain battled in October. This month it is Newt and Cain. Newt leads in the last poll, and Cain led before that. There's still a lot of movement in this state.

Florida (1-31) - No recent polls, but Romney and Cain have battled here for awhile.

Nevada and Maine (2-4) - Caucuses. Maine has no recent polling. October had one with a 6%+ margin of error with Cain over Romney, but 6% is almost worthless. Another October poll has Mitt and Cain battling in Nevada.

Colorado and Minnesota (2-7) - Nothing recent in either state before October.

Arizona and Michigan (2-28) - One recent poll in Arizona had Newt up 28-23 over Romney with Cain at 17% Michigan is Romney's old home and where his dad was governor in the 60's. He won here last time 39-30%. EPIC/MRA had a 6.1% margin of error poll that had him leading Newt 34-20. That could mean 40-14 or 28-26. Michigan has a quasi-open primary, so that will factor in.

March 6th is Super Tuesday. It'll be likely decided by then.

Back to Romney, why isn't he catching on? People don't trust him. People also do not trust political establishments. This goes back to the end of the Bush era with the spending, bailouts, and the like. Obama the Peter Principle in Chief is deeply unpopular, but so is much of the GOP establishment, and Romney is getting the brunt of it. Some of that goes back to his record as Massachusetts governor. Some of that is due to the consultant proxy battles between Romney/McCain/Palin in the post 2008 blowups. Much of that goes down to trust. People don't trust Romney. He campaigned and was a liberal, and all of a sudden "became a conservative" when he ran for president. I don't think so. Actions not words. People don't trust a tax raising, gun grabbing, Romneycare enacting individual. If organization and money equal automatic wins, Romney would have already won. He's king there, and he still trailing nationally.

There's a big opening for someone to take out Romney. However, somebody has to take it. Either someone new has to come in (Newt rising from the ashes, Huntsman, or maybe even Ron Paul, but he'll likely get his 5-15%) or someone who collapsed has to rehab enough to get a couple of upsets. Bachmann, Perry, Cain. That is what has to happen, and it may or may not happen. Much like 2008, nobody is running away with this. Too bad that Mitch Daniels didn't run.

Right now the search is on for who can beat Romney - but also can beat Obama. (for the record, I think Obama beats Romney easily unless Obama beats himself) The search is ongoing. Anybody but Romney in the primary.

Rick Perry for President

I expect when things to shake out for this to be a three, maybe four way race in the primary. Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, and possibly Michele Bachmann. Ron Paul will likely get his 5-10% with varied support for Herman Cain, Thad McCotter, Newt Gingrich, and Gary Johnson. I don't expect Sarah Palin to jump in, but I don't see her getting the nomination based on a "Can't win" worry.

Romney, Perry, and Huntsman I think are the "frontrunners." I think any of those three could win the nomination. I think of those three, two of them are very electable in the general election. Perry and Huntsman. Romney I think is less electable unless Obama beats himself.

Unless Perry drops out, I will probably not be voting for Bachmann, Cain, Paul, Newt, Johnson, Santorum, or Palin (if she runs) based on chances of winning in the general election. I protest voted in the 08 election because of Rudy McRomneyabee. I don't regret it. There's different dynamics this time.

I don't care for Romney, but he's got money and organizational skills. His organizational skills are elite. Those two things alone give him a chance. He is a former governor for one term, and has a venture capitalist background. He was the establishment favorite in 2008 and is their favorite once again this year. Working against him (I think) this time is that there's no McCain. That's hurting him with conservatives who preferred him to McCain. Huntsman may play a factor in this later on though. Despite polls, I don't think Romney is electable unless Obama beats himself. That's due to his constant shifting in positions over and over again, as well as his pandering. Where does he stand after Romneycare? Social issues, especially his shift on life issues and a consistently anti-gun record, are a factor to a degree, but Romneycare is his biggest issue, followed by the voting against it after voting for it types of shifts. Jobs is the other. His jobs record in Massachusetts isn't that stellar, and it needs to be in order to compete with Obama. His biggest weakness though isn't his views. It's his constant changing of views. There's too much John Kerry in him, although at least Romney isn't a traitor like Kerry was in his 72 senate speech. I'd probably cave if he's the nominee, but I'd really be holding my nose.

Speaking of Huntsman. Why would I support Huntsman over Romney? It's the economy stupid. Utah has been one of the brighter spots with the economy in recent years. Huntsman only had one term as governor, but there was stronger economic growth in Utah than many other places in the country. Was he responsible for all of it? No, but he didn't screw things up, although there is one major issue I have with economic issues of his that is a dealbreaker with me for any primary vote. Cap and trade. He supports it for global warming. As someone with family in the auto industry and supportive of manufacturing, that's a dealbreaker. I'm not sold on man-made global warming because A. Every study I've seen is based on an 150 year study or so, which is a drop in the bucket in earth years unless you are a young earth creationist (I'm not) or B. I'm not sold that global warming is a bad thing. Even if it is bad, how is cap and trade going to fix it? The other thing about Huntsman - good and bad - is that he's a technocrat.

Huntsman has a record of being pro-life as far as I know, but my guard is up a bit. Is he for embryo research? I'd trust him over Romney on this issue though. He is for civil unions. I oppose those and would rather have government get out of marriage altogether. That's not a dealbreak for me, but cap and trade is. However, I do think Huntsman is electable in a general election if he is the nominee. I also think you'll see a lot more from him as it gets closer to New Hampshire and Iowa. What separates Huntsman from Romney is that with Huntsman, you have a good idea what you're going to get. A moderate technocrat. I'd vote for Huntsman over Obama, but not in a primary.

Rick Perry has my support. I commented on his electability here. I think he's a center-right candidate who can win due to his experience, the economy, and the fact that people know what they are going to get from him. Perry is who he is. Do I agree with Perry 100%? No I don't. The vaccine requirement. I don't have a problem with him encouraging it, but I did with requirements. He realized his mistake and backed off. I'm also opposed to the death penalty. However, there's a lot of issues where I do agree with him.

1. Abolishing lifetime tenure for judges. Right now, there's no accountability for federal judicial decisions. There needs to be checks and balances.
2. 16th Amendment income tax. Eliminate it.
3. Balance Budget Amendment.
4. Opposition to Cap and Trade and supports of all the above energy policy which will help our economy
5. Pro-life and pro-2nd Amendment
6. Repeal Obamacare.
7. Turned down stimulus money because of the strings attached.
8. Reduced property taxes and refused to create income tax
9. Vetoes. He used the veto more times than anyone else in Texas history - despite republican control for much of his time in office.

In addition to that, the issue is experience. Obama was a junior league senator with four years of statewide elected experience. Before that, he was a state senator. He is the Peter Principle in Chief. George W Bush I think was inexperienced as well. He was a 1 1/2 term governor and his other major experience was running the Texas Rangers. I think the inexperience caught up with him in the 2nd term of his presidency. Carter was a one term governor and former state senator. He was the Peter Principle in Chief of his time, and then some. Worst president in my lifetime.

Rick Perry has a 10 year record as governor, and 10 years before that as either Lt Governor or Agricultural Commissioner. During the past 20 years, Texas has been one of the leading states in economic growth. Perry didn't do that by himself, but most importantly, he didn't screw things up. A bad governor can do a number on a state. Jennifer Granholm, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Gray Davis, Kathleen Blanco, and Rod Blagojevich prove that. Rick Perry is the most conservative candidate running who can win, and he can win due to the performance of the Texas economy and jobs over the past 10 years.

Jobs is how Perry wins, and jobs is how Obama loses.

Romney makes it offical. He also won't get my vote

After Rick Snyder's tax increase, my tolerance for corporate liberal republicans is getting less and less. Enter Mitt Romney version 3.0 (or is it 4.0). He couldn't even beat John McCain in 2008, and now he thinks he's the electable guy? The pundits and much of the establishment thinks he's the electable one, and that we should get behind him.

"Romney is the guy to beat," said Mark McKinnon, a campaign strategist for former President George W. Bush. "He's been around the track before. He's got money, a focused message on the economy and a well-oiled machine. But his perch is very fragile, and he's vulnerable. He's the establishment guy in an anti-establishment environment."

Mark McKinnon. Refused to attack Obama with the McCain campaign because he thought an Obama election "would send a great message to the country and the world." I don't trust him.

Former GOP Chairman Ed Gillespie says leading Republicans, some of whom have urged more candidates to get in the race, increasingly are ready to choose among those who have already jumped in.

"After the Haley-Huckabee-Daniels' decisions, I think the mentality of most Republican donors and activists is, 'We need to get behind somebody who's out there.' "

That's why we have primaries. That's why we have the Ames straw poll before that. That's why we have the speeches at the Mackinac Conference in the fall. Everybody was waiting on Fred Thompson who was supposed to be the alternative to the so called front runners derisively nicknamed "Rudy McRomney" (and add Huckabee on fiscal) due to their liberal views. Thompson crashed and burned at his speech from what I have heard there, and that ended it.

Former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu, in some campaigns a kingmaker in the Granite State, was in the crowd but not necessarily as a supporter. He said he hasn't decided between endorsing Romney and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

If I had to choose between Romney and Pawlenty, I'm voting Pawlenty. If others take off, I'll look at them as well. Right now, I'm almost already in the Stop Romney mode. He's unelectable. I repeat. He's unelectable. Why is he unelectable?


A. Social issue problems. Flip-flopped on abortion and many other issues. Neither side trusts him. Is he going to yap about "I'm conservative too. I oppose gay marriage" all the time? I was at that Mackinac speech and it was rather insulting to my intelligence.

B. Fiscal conservatives won't like Obamacare.

C. Gun grabber. That's one of the few issues where his actions are consistent. Consistently bad.

D. He tied his dog to the roof of his car and drove 12 hours. I'm not a animal rights guy, but that's just wrong. You don't do that to your best friend, or any live animal. Even worse, it's an Irish setter. That's often a hunting dog. If you think Sarah Palin's predator control of wolves pissed off a lot of suburban women, this is going to piss off 90% of the dog owners when this makes the rounds.

No 2008 retreads.