In an article entitled Santorum: I’ll beat Romney if Gingrich drops out it was pointed out that Santorum suggested that he would be winning if it weren’t for Newt.
“It’s always harder when you’ve got two conservatives running in the race as we have seen in Washington and we’ve seen in other states,” Santorum said on Fox News Sunday. “We have the anti-Romney vote, if you will. Both Gingrich and I are slugging away.”
I’ve got numerous issues with this statement, but let’s deal with just the math first. For the moment let’s ignore the fact that when a candidate drops out their vote splits and never does 100% of their supporters go to one candidate and one candidate only. (Romney and Santorum both benefited after Bachmann dropped, Romney and Gingrich went up after Huntsman dropped, Gingrich and Santorum went up after Perry dropped…nobody gets all the voters when a candidate drops)…but let’s ignore that fact of reality for just a moment to give Rick the best shot possible.
Last night’s numbers for the Washington Caucus were as follows:
Last time I checked 37.6% is more than 35.1%…but Santorum math is special math, much like all of Santorum’s short-bus style statements.
But maybe Washington is just the outlier. (Santorum hopes it’s the outlier because otherwise he lost to Ron Paul, how pathetic).
Okay, but apparently he says that if Newt had dropped out before Michigan he would have won Michigan.
How about before the Romney Michigan bounce…Let’s look at Arizona.
Nope 47.1% still beats 42.8%.
Okay so if ALL of the Gingrich voters went for Santorum in Michigan then Santorum would have won by 3.3 points. But let’s take a look at that and apply reality. First of all we know that 9% of the total vote that went for Santorum was Democrats trying to throw the race. So no matter how you want to look at this Romney still beats Santorum among Republicans in a Republican primary. That’s just a fact.
But let’s talk about something else. When a candidate drops out never in history have ALL of their voters gone for one candidate over another. They split. Each candidate always gets a little boost and then more often, especially in this race, people are going to stay home and just wait for the end when they can vote for any Republican against Obama. So, and I realize this is speculation, but I think these are safe numbers, of the 6.5% that voted for Newt, 1% would have stayed home (Santorum’s lead is now only 2.3%), 1% would have voted for Paul ( lead of 1.3%) and 1% would hate Santorum’s religious rhetoric so much they would even vote for Romney rather than see the fundamentalist freak show get it (so that’s +1 Romney, -1 Santorum…or Romney wins by .7%). So even with cheating by throwing in with the Democrats AND Newt dropping out, Santorum still couldn’t win.
But how about if we turn to the national polls?
What is the poll that is most consistently accurate when you compare their last pre-election poll to final results. I would say that in previous years that has always been Rasmussen (probably because of large sample size and looking at likely voters not just registered voters). So what does the most recent numbers from Scott Rasmussen have to say?
Wow Rick Ties with 40% to 40%…oh but wait if even 1% of them goes to Romney, Paul, or stays home…Rick loses again. Rick always looses. Because Rick is a loser.
But beside the fact that there is literally no way for Santorum to win this (Santorum may “win” a few states on Super Tuesday, but all of those are proportional delegate distributions, so he will gain absolutely no delegate advantage there, and Santorum isn’t even up for a lot of delegates in Ohio or any of them in Virginia due to the fact that he is a terrible executive and can’t manage a campaign)
But let’s deal with the more egregious thing he said:
“It’s always harder when you’ve got two conservatives running in the race as we have seen in Washington and we’ve seen in other states,”
Two conservative? Where? I see Romney a pro-business, small government, pro-capitalism, state’s rights conservative who did the best he could in a highly liberal state and held the line keeping the private sector of health insurance alive against the liberals who just wanted to nationalize it (is nationalize the term for a government take over of a private industry when it’s only a state?). Then I see Santorum who is pro-union and never met a spending increase he didn’t like, who has repeatedly voted for the growth of government power and never for state’s rights and every chance he gets he can’t lavish enough praise and admiration for his communist grandfather. No conservative there. And I see Newt who, while infinitely more conservative than the socialist that is Santorum, he has also on repeated occasion voted for and advocated for the expansion of government power. So really Rick, where are these two conservatives? The only conservatives who have been in this race are Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann (and maybe Herman Cain, but I was always too shaky on his foreign policy to say that he was really a conservative). I am getting tired of this man lying about being a conservative and no one calling him on it. Economically he is as bleeding heart and big government as it gets. And given that his low opinion of women is more in line with Israel’s enemies than with Israel I worry about his foreign policy conservative credentials as well. He is opposed to the liberty and the pursuit of happiness from the Declaration and the limited government of the Constitution. He is not a conservative.