What Do Tuesday's Results Mean?
Pat Sajak ·
March 14, 2012 at 5:56pm
Why lie? I have no idea.
- Comment (73)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:
- Let your voice be heard! Join the conversation -- or start your own.
- Follow your favorite Contributors and fellow Members
- Enjoy Premium Podcasts
- Read Member-initiated conversations
- Keep tabs on your favorite conversations
- Like, Quote or Share your favorite post or comments
- Receive special Member-only invitations... and more!
Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place. Join today!
Already a Member? Sign In
Comments:
Apr '11
Re: What Do Tuesday's Results Mean?
I would be seriously surprised if Santorum makes great gains in Illinois.
Feb '12
Re: What Do Tuesday's Results Mean?
Duane Oyen
Organization still means something- in both the primaries and the general. I sort of like people who can manage things competently in a plodding way. · 17 minutes ago
A little unfair, no?
It wasn't a question of management. Santorum was ignored until just before he won Iowa, and then was ignored again after that. He didn't have the money to get on the ballots everywhere. It takes thousands of hours to find suitable delegates in every district in every state. If you can't afford the staff to handle this massive task because primary voters aren't taking you seriously yet, you're going to fail to get on the ballot in some districts/states.
I notice that Romney supporters like to make judgments as if Romney and Santorum started in roughly the same place. On the contrary, Romney started as the presumed front-runner with a treasure chest of cash and a big organization. Santorum started as "oh yeah that other guy."
Edited on March 14, 2012 at 11:08pmDec '11
Re: What Do Tuesday's Results Mean?
It means that the blood feud between the people who view policy as the means to end of an election and the people who view elections as the means to the end of policy continues for awhile longer.
Apr '11
Re: What Do Tuesday's Results Mean?
Leporello
James, you speak as if the Romney and Santorum campaigns are equivalent in resources. The Santorum group is barely a campaign at all by comparison to Romney's: Santorum has no more than one-fifth the money to spend (most of which was raised the day before), and its organization is mainly a handful of dedicated volunteers.
So when Santorum wins anywhere that Romney competed, it's a big deal.
Santorum did not even make the ballot in three Ohio congressional districts because he hadn't had the men and money to make it happen before the deadline. In other words, Santorum could not gather votes in one-sixth (about 17%) of the state. Yet he came within 11,000 votes of winning the state. Effectively, the Ohio primary was a catastrophic loss for Romney. · 5 hours ago
We're talking about different things. I'm saying that Santorum had a bad night (well, a bad March so far, as well as a bad February, and a bad January). You're pointing out that he's not very good at fundraising or organization, which is an excuse, not a disagreement. I was discussing delegate, not moral, victories.
Apr '11
Re: What Do Tuesday's Results Mean?
Duane Oyen
James Of England
Once again, Santorum got a losing draw when he needed a big win. Once again, this was reported as a big win for Santorum. What happened was that we edged slightly closer to the point when the media stops behaving as if there's a race. Not a lot closer; assuming Santorum wins Illinois, the race should continue until April 24th, and longer if he also wins New York.
Not quite as easy as that, since Santorum has already lost 10 delegates in Illinois, having missed the deadline to field a slate at all in 10 districts.
Organization still means something- in both the primaries and the general. I sort of like people who can manage things competently in a plodding way. ·
I don't think the handful of delegates he won't get in Illinois are as much of a problem as the margin he needs to win anyway. Taking Silver's model and adjusting it for Santorum's losses so far, he needs close to double Mitt's vote share.
Feb '12
Re: What Do Tuesday's Results Mean?
James Of England
Leporello
James, you speak as if the Romney and Santorum campaigns are equivalent in resources. The Santorum group is barely a campaign at all by comparison to Romney's: Santorum has no more than one-fifth the money to spend (most of which was raised the day before), and its organization is mainly a handful of dedicated volunteers.
So when Santorum wins anywhere that Romney competed, it's a big deal.
Santorum did not even make the ballot in three Ohio congressional districts because he hadn't had the men and money to make it happen before the deadline. In other words, Santorum could not gather votes in one-sixth (about 17%) of the state. Yet he came within 11,000 votes of winning the state. Effectively, the Ohio primary was a catastrophic loss for Romney.
We're talking about different things. I'm saying that Santorum had a bad night (well, a bad March so far, as well as a bad February, and a bad January). You're pointing out that he's not very good at fundraising or organization...
No, that's not at all what my point was.
Apr '11
Re: What Do Tuesday's Results Mean?
Leporello
James Of England
We're talking about different things. I'm saying that Santorum had a bad night (well, a bad March so far, as well as a bad February, and a bad January). You're pointing out that he's not very good at fundraising or organization...
No, that's not at all what my point was. · 37 minutes ago
Could you rephrase it? It sounded as if you were explaining why Santorum was losing and suggesting that this was a disagreement with the claim that he was losing (which isn't to say that he'll continue to do so; as with any scoring system like this, it just makes it harder to succeed until it becomes impossible, which is not yet). The problems were inadequate fundraising and inadequate organization, which are, indeed, certainly two of Santorum's chief flaws as a candidate; compare, for instance, Ron Paul, whose organization has been flawless.
May '10
Re: What Do Tuesday's Results Mean?
James Of England
Duane Oyen
...... (quote) Not quite as easy as that, since Santorum has already lost 10 delegates in Illinois, having missed the deadline to field a slate at all in 10 districts.
Organization still means something- in both the primaries and the general. I sort of like people who can manage things competently in a plodding way. ·
I don't think the handful of delegates he won't get in Illinois are as much of a problem as the margin he needs to win anyway. Taking Silver's model and adjusting it for Santorum's losses so far, he needs close to double Mitt's vote share. · 1 hour ago
It's not the number that I was referring to, James- I was paralleling problems hitting the ballot with the Ohio comment.
Feb '12
Re: What Do Tuesday's Results Mean?
James Of England
Leporello
Could you rephrase it? ...
OK, I'll take another stab. Santorum had inadequate fundraising and organization for all of 201 - not because he is an inadequate fundraiser and manager, but because he was not taken seriously until recently. Once he was taken seriously, his fundraising was fine and his organization began to develop. Romney started as the runner-up in the 2008 campaign (and therefore nationally known and expected to be a big contender), with a large number of veterans from his 2008 campaign ready to work for him again, and quite a lot of money based on his reputation from 2008 and his personal connections. Ron Paul also started as a prior presidential campaigner with an established reputation and a large band of loyalists. Santorum had none of this - it's his first presidential campaign, and the spotlight was on other contenders for many months before it was on him. Given these big differences in the starting positions of Santorum versus Romney (or Paul), it is always a good night for Santorum when he wins, and it is always a bad night for Romney whenever Santorum comes in as a close second.
Edited on March 15, 2012 at 3:12amMay '10
Re: What Do Tuesday's Results Mean?
Leporello
OK, I'll take another stab. Santorum had inadequate fundraising and organization for all of 201 - not because he is an inadequate fundraiser and manager, but because he was not taken seriously until recently. Once he was taken seriously, his fundraising was fine and his organization began to develop. Romney startedas the runner-up in the 2008 campaign.... large number of veterans from his 2008 campaign ready to work for him again, and quite a lot of money ......
That is indeed true, Leporello, but it has always been thus in presidential campaigns. People with prior runs had the edge the second time around; it should be noted that Romney had no problem raising funds in 2008 either. That year, McCain was broke, and still won (it was, in all fairness, his second run as well).
But we have to move from where we are now- the race doesn't offer mulligans so that laggards can catch up. And the reality is that all 3 ABR candidates together have to increase their combined delegate takes by at least 17% in order to stop Romney.
But I've seen no sign that Santorum's organization has improved. Can you explain?
Apr '11
Re: What Do Tuesday's Results Mean?
Leporello
OK, I'll take another stab. Santorum had inadequate fundraising and organization for all of 201 - not because....
OK. This takes it back another level. Santorum has not been good at fundraising because he wasn't doing the right things in 2008. Why wasn't he the runner up in 2008? In part, because of his 2006 defeat, in part because his ideology was too close to Bush's, in part because he didn't start early enough. Plus, as you note, he doesn't have the connections. I'd add to that that he doesn't have the personal attributes that cause so many big donors to support Mitt; they over-value personal brilliance, and that isn't a quality that people who know Santorum generally trumpet about him, but I'd agree that your factors are important. Plus, Santorum doesn't have the experience of running a presidential campaign, although, again, others in similar situations have fared better, organizationally.
These are reasons that achieving his close defeat was impressive, though, not arguments that his results are different from what they have been. They argue for 2016/20/24/28 (depending on electoral success + VP), not 2012.
Apr '11
Re: What Do Tuesday's Results Mean?
Duane Oyen
That is indeed true, Leporello, but it has always been thus in presidential campaigns. People with prior runs had the edge the second time around; it should be noted that Romney had no problem raising funds in 2008 either. That year, McCain was broke, and still won (it was, in all fairness, his second run as well).
This doesn't mean, by the way, that Santorum is a lock for the next non-incumbent cycle. Romney's "inevitable" juggernaut status comes partly from his fundraising, which Santorum is unlikely to match next time (he still won't have the connections that Romney does), partly from qualities that Santorum shares, and partly from endorsements.
Santorum is still struggling to get even a minimal number of endorsements, with those he worked with endorsing him at an even lower rate than they endorsed Newt, who at least got the Georgia establishment; Santorum's governor endorsed Romney, and he splits Pennsylvania reps equally with Romney. He's not winning the endorsements of his conservative senate peers either; I believe ex-senator Mike DeWine is the only example, and that only after Romney attacked a bill DeWine and Santorum co-authored.
Feb '12
Re: What Do Tuesday's Results Mean?
Duane Oyen
That is indeed true, Leporello, but it has always been thus in presidential campaigns. People with prior runs had the edge the second time around; it should be noted that Romney had no problem raising funds in 2008 either. That year, McCain was broke, and still won (it was, in all fairness, his second run as well).
It has always been true that very rich candidates have never had any trouble raising money since they have many very rich friends. I have no problem with anyone's being very rich, but I do not expect those who are not very rich to be able to raise money as fast. Nor do I expect someone who became a real contender only in the last couple months to have the same level of organization as someone who has been a real contender for a year already.
Romney has had tons of money and endorsements, and a year on the campaign trail, and not only can he not close the deal, he has to worry about a fellow whom no one took seriously a few months ago. What does that tell us about Romney?
Feb '12
Re: What Do Tuesday's Results Mean?
James Of England
Santorum has not been good at fundraising because he wasn't doing the right things in 2008. Why wasn't he the runner up in 2008? In part, because of his 2006 defeat, in part because his ideology was too close to Bush's, in part because he didn't start early enough. Plus, as you note, he doesn't have the connections. I'd add to that that he doesn't have the personal attributes that cause so many big donors to support Mitt; they over-value personal brilliance, and that isn't a quality that people who know Santorum generally trumpet about him, but I'd agree that your factors are important. Plus, Santorum doesn't have the experience of running a presidential campaign, although, again, others in similar situations have fared better, organizationally.
Santorum didn't run in 2008. Are you saying he should have?
Re: endorsements, how much do they matter? GWB received major endorsements before or just after he launched his 2000 campaign. Did that make him a good candidate? McCain received many endorsements in 2008: did that make him a good candidate? Santorum will receive endorsements if he keeps winning.
Apr '11
Re: What Do Tuesday's Results Mean?
Leporello
It has always been true that very rich candidates have never had any trouble raising money since they have many very rich friends. I have no problem with anyone's being very rich, but I do not expect those who are not very rich to be able to raise money as fast. Nor do I expect someone who became a real contender only in the last couple months to have the same level of organization as someone who has been a real contender for a year already.
Romney has had tons of money and endorsements, and a year on the campaign trail, and not only can he not close the deal, he has to worry about a fellow whom no one took seriously a few months ago. What does that tell us about Romney? ·
Senators and lobbyists also develop rich friend networks. Perry's fundraising machine was briefly magnificent. Santorum's position is essentially analogous to Huckabee's, but Huckabee didn't suffer as severe organization deficits.
McCain lost 18 races, 8 of them to Huckabee, and would have lost more if Mitt had stayed in. Mitt's lost 11.
Again, though, winning unimpressively is not losing.
May '10
Re: What Do Tuesday's Results Mean?
Leporello
..............
Romney has had tons of money and endorsements, and a year on the campaign trail, and not only can he not close the deal, he has to worry about a fellow whom no one took seriously a few months ago. What does that tell us about Romney? · 2 hours ago
I would say that it tells us that the activist Republican base has an emotional reaction against people who remind them of elite Democrats, as opposed to TEA Party stalwarts, and thus, for many of the activist participants in the early stages of the race, they are still looking for our conservative mirror of Obama, not a rich Harvard guy, regardless of prior record.
Leporello, think of 2004- the Dem activists loved Howard Dean; on our side, people have been looking for our own Howard Dean, and there isn't one running.
Feb '12
Re: What Do Tuesday's Results Mean?
James Of England
Senators and lobbyists also develop rich friend networks. Perry's fundraising machine was briefly magnificent. Santorum's position is essentially analogous to Huckabee's, but Huckabee didn't suffer as severe organization deficits....
I remember Huckabee being terribly organized. For a long time, the main staff was (a) Huckabee, and (b) his daughter. Then, for a time, he brought on (c) Ed Rollins. Then, Ed left, Huck hung around, and finally quit himself.
We won't agree on how to judge the relative achievements of the Romney and Santorum campaigns. I do agree that one needn't be rich or famous to be a good fundraiser.
As for 2008, by the way, Mr. Romney's self-sacrifice rather early in the game, combined with his willingness to make himself available to the McCain campaign despite the rough-and-tumble of the primaries, was very impressive. Unfortunately, McCain did not see how useful Romney could have been to him. Imagine if McCain had chosen Romney as VP in February - double the campaign energy for 9 months before the election. (Actually, quadruple the campaign energy, since Romney had a great organization and McCain's was poor.)
Feb '12
Re: What Do Tuesday's Results Mean?
Duane Oyen
Leporello
..............
Romney has had tons of money and endorsements, and a year on the campaign trail, and not only can he not close the deal, he has to worry about a fellow whom no one took seriously a few months ago. What does that tell us about Romney? · 2 hours ago
I would say that it tells us that the activist Republican base has an emotional reaction against people who remind them of elite Democrats, as opposed to TEA Party stalwarts, and thus, for many of the activist participants in the early stages of the race, they are still looking for our conservative mirror of Obama, not a rich Harvard guy, regardless of prior record.
Leporello, think of 2004- the Dem activists loved Howard Dean; on our side, people have been looking for our own Howard Dean, and there isn't one running. · 3 minutes ago
Not a bad interpretation, except it puts the blame on the voters and not enough on Romney. Romney didn't move far enough right, and he also couldn't persuade voters to trust him. I think his failure has little to do with his Harvard pedigree but with his positions and credibility.
Apr '11
Re: What Do Tuesday's Results Mean?
Leporello
Re: endorsements, how much do they matter? GWB received major endorsements before or just after he launched his 2000 campaign. Did that make him a good candidate? McCain received many endorsements in 2008: did that make him a good candidate? Santorum will receive endorsements if he keeps winning. ·
I think that Bush 43 was a pretty good candidate, yes. Certainly better than his competitors. I think McCain did pretty well in the '08 primaries, where Republican endorsements matter; he beat us, the jerk.
Santorum's been the front runner in quite a lot of races, but has very, very few endorsements (6 reps, no governors, no senators, despite his pleading with Fortuno, long term friendship, and going to the same church). Newt has 12 reps and 2 governors. Perry has 3 governors, a senator, and 13 reps. Paul has more out of state Federal legislators. Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Liz Dole, and Dan Quayle (in 2000) all got more, with Lamar Alexander and John Kasich arguably netting better endorsements. Santorum's is an unimpressive slate for an also-ran. After he's won 9 states it is a unique, unprecedented failure in modern politics.
Apr '11
Re: What Do Tuesday's Results Mean?
Leporello
I remember Huckabee being terribly organized. For a long time, the main staff was (a) Huckabee, and (b) his daughter. Then, for a time, he brought on (c) Ed Rollins.
We won't agree on how to judge the relative achievements of the Romney and Santorum campaigns. I do agree that one needn't be rich or famous to be a good fundraiser.
Which races could Huckabee not compete in? What was Huckabee's equivalent of DC, Virginia, Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, Tennessee, and New Hampshire? The Huckabee events I went to in 2008 were pretty well organized, and I recall no failures to achieve threshold levels of competence, but my personal familiarity with the campaign was limited to his successful period. I was there when Huckabee announced, and that was certainly less hyped than it might have been, so his late '07 campaign expansion did seem to help.
I don't think that Santorum's campaign standards have risen to the level of other minor multimillionaire campaigners in terms of endorsements and organization; of course they're not comparable to Romney's, but they also compare poorly with Santorum's peers. Santorum has other qualities.