As much as Rick Santorum deserves credit for his tremendous victories last night in Minnesota, Missouri and Colorado, what do you think the results mean? Isn't it true that many of the contests thus far have really been the electorate saying, repeatedly, "I don't like the frontrunner!"?
When Gingrich won South Carolina, we can certainly point to his articulate defenses of freedom and his savvy campaign performances. But we can also see the electorate saying "Don't tell us Romney is sufficiently good."
When things moved to Florida, voters said "But don't tell us Gingrich is up to snuff either. He's awful."
And now we're back to folks saying, "No, really, we have serious problems with Romney."
Gingrich did well in South Carolina because Romney had shown himself surprisingly inarticulate in defense of liberty and mumbling during debates. Romney was rewarded in Florida for putting up a great fight without having all the ex-wives of Gingrich (and running more negative ads than was thought possible). And Santorum is faring well now because conservatives still don't trust Romney and part of that is his weakness on social and economic issues. On all issues, I guess.
But what's the solution? Certainly not for anyone to get out of the race, is it? If the electorate is truly dissatisfied with this slate, this needs to continue to be messy all the way to the convention. That way, we either get a brokered convention -- to dream the impossible dream! -- or we get a candidate who becomes good enough to take on Obama.
Got that? Nobody drop out. Ron Paul, keep doing what you're doing, picking up a few delegates here and there. Santorum, work your magic in the midwest, ok? Romney, keep winning coastal states. Gingrich, do you think you could rally and pick some southern states up?