Tagg Romney shared this early morning photo at the voting precinct in Belmont, MA: “Voting for my Dad for President was an emotional experience this am.” The Romneys (left to right): The Gov, Joseph, Ann, Tagg, Jen, and Allie
A grand and important moment took place this morning at about 8:40 A.M. eastern time.
Governor Mitt Romney, Republican presidential nominee, and his wife, Ann, cast their ballots for the United States presidency at the Beech Street Center precinct near their home in bedford, Massachusetts.
I’m pretty sure we know who they voted for!
Here’s a behind-the-scenes report from ABC’s Muir:
The moment! Mitt and Ann vote::
The GOP candidate, accompanied by his wife, Ann, told reporters he feels “very, very good” about his overall chances and “great about Ohio.”
A fairly large crowd greeted the Romneys when they arrived at the polling station, according to reports. …[A] woman held a sign that read: “Mitt and Ann enjoy your new White House.”
Romney shared a kiss with Ann after casting his vote, whose stop at the polling station was just the start of a busy election day for the GOP nominee. He heads next to Cleveland, Ohio, where running mate Paul Ryan is expected to pay a visit as well. Then Romney heads onward to Pittsburgh while Ryan travels to Richmond, before reuniting for the Republican ticket’s election night party in Boston.
Romney son Tagg and little cutie patootie grandson, Joseph, went with The Gov to Cleveland where they will join with Paul Ryan to do a little retail politicking. Romney will then go on to Pittsburgh, PA, and Ryan will go to Richmond, VA. Ann Romney will remain in Boston today where all will reunite to await election results.
Obama is in Chicago today making a few phone calls and playing basketball.
Another memorable moment; Paul and Janna vote!
GOP Vice Presidential candidate Congressman Paul Ryan and wife, Janna, cast their votes today in Janesville, Wisconsin. Their three adorable children, Lisa, Charlie, and Sam, accompanied them.
Senior Romney Campaign Adviser Ed Gillespie appeared early this morning on FOX & Friends. “Mitt Romney will win decisively.”
Ed Gillespie: “The fact is, we can’t afford four more years like the last four years. And Governor Romney has been out there putting forward a positive vision and a plan to turn the economy around, to create 12 million jobs, unleash domestic energy, get us to a balanced budget. That’s why he’s got momentum here on election day. And I think that’s why he’s going to win tonight, not just win, but win decisively. I don’t think there’s going to be any doubt at the end of tonight who the next president is going to be.”
VOTE FOR ROMNEY & RYAN!
UPDATE: See video of The Gov’s brief interview on Monday night football. Click here.
Like a waterfall, newspaper editorial board endorsements for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan continue to pour in…
Foster’s Daily Democrat (NH)
October 24, 2012
It’s Now Time To Decide
If you had already made up your mind going into Monday night’s presidential debate, nothing said probably changed your mind. But for those who were undecided, there certainly was some food for thought.
… But what was lacking on the part of the president was a vision for the future and credibility based on the past. The current commander in chief repeatedly accused Romney of reaching back into history for failed policies of the past both home and abroad. The president summoned images of President Herbert Hoover and others which history has deemed failures. In doing so, Obama tried to gloss over his own history of failed promises — on unemployment, on balancing the budget, cutting the deficit and — as we believe — earning the respect of our overseas allies.
Admittedly, Obama’s failures center mostly around domestic policy — Romney’s strength. But as Romney pointed out Monday night, in order to be strong and respected on the international stage, the United States must be strong economically.
… As readers know, there is no doubt on the part of the editorial board here at Foster’s Daily Democrat new leadership is needed from the White House. We believe all three debates — but especially the first — support that notion. We believe that, on balance, the debates have shown Mitt Romney to be the more capable and with a vision for the future — a vision President Obama has failed to offer.
On Nov. 6, we urge voters to give Mitt Romney a chance to offer the nation real hope and change.
October 23, 2012
Romney’s The One
Four years ago the voters put their faith in a man who offered vague promises of hope and change at a time when any change looked like a good idea and hope was in short supply.
What this nation got in Barack Obama was a president who used an economic crisis to further his redistributionist agenda — and, not surprisingly, failed miserably at restoring American prosperity. Oh, he brought change all right — to a government-knows-best philosophy that has given us four years of high unemployment, higher gas prices, a $16 trillion deficit, and a job-killing regulatory environment.
.. Enough! This isn’t the kind of change anyone can believe in.
… The other simple fact is that in Mitt Romney voters have not merely a safe and steady alternative but a proven leader and an extraordinarily skilled expert in the art of the economic turnaround.
… He did that all over again for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.
… What Romney knows at the core of his being is that sometimes government must step aside and sometimes it must lead.
Last night the nation saw a man who in the area of foreign policy is prepared to lead, who knows that for the United States to remain safe it must reclaim its place on the world stage.
During the last four years the world has become a more dangerous place. We can’t afford four more years of a leadership vacuum.
Not when in Mitt Romney voters have the choice of a strong, smart hand on the helm, a decent, caring man, who lives his faith, who loves his country and would serve it well. For all of those reasons, the Boston Herald is pleased to endorse Mitt Romney for president.
UPDATE: More stories about Mitt’s character below the fold!
Lots has been said on our site over the past year or so about Mitt the man. But an article from Deroy Murdock appeared in the National Review today entitled “The Decency of Mitt: The Real Romney is Emerging” that reminds me of one of the reasons I support Mitt: his character.
Mr. Murdock starts by pointing out, as a number of commentators now have, that one of the reasons for Mitt’s rise in the polls was the stark contrast between Team Obama’s version of Mitt and reality. With many not happy with Obama’s job performance, their strategy was to paint Mitt as negatively as possible and make people willing to choose the “devil you know.” That strategy, backed up by ceaseless Democrat pounding during the summer and a hundred million dollars in advertising, seemed to be working well, until, well, voters met the real Mitt in the debates.
Why is Mitt Romney rising? Americans who watched the GOP nominee debate President Obama never met the cold, greedy, sexist, racist, carcinogenic tax cheat that Team Obama promised would appear. The calm, steady, and reasonable gentleman who opposed Obama was no Gordon Gekko.
Americans might like Romney even more if they understood his random acts of kindness and significant feats of bravery. As Mara Gay, Dan Hirschhorn, and M. L. Nestel wrote for TheDaily.com: “A man weighed down by the image of a heartless corporate raider who can’t relate to people actually has a history of doing remarkably kind things for those in need.”
So let me continue to introduce you to the real Mitt. I’ve put out a couple posts on this topic in the past. One was the largely unfiltered account of the person who bought a house from Mitt. By this man’s telling, Mitt stayed behind to personally walk him through the home, which the buyer had purchased lock, stock and barrel. He came away from the experience with such an appreciation for Mitt’s character that he felt compelled to reach out to the media. Here’s a news report of that story:
Another post was my personal account from occasional interactions with the Romney and Davies families. Bottom line: they’re fantastic people. When looking for someone to cut the fat out of Washington DC, I look at Mitt as the ideal candidate. He is more wealthy than I ever imagine I’ll be, just like the Federal government can be by taxing and borrowing, but the frugality and discipline with which he and his children live their lives indicates an appreciation for the resulting responsibility. I want someone in Washington who has a demonstrated ability to rein in his personal finances. And if I may continue, I first got involved with Mitt’s campaign back in 2007, when I told my friend, his son Matt, if his dad decided to run that I wanted to help. What compelled me was what I’d seen his dad accomplish in Massachusetts working with an 85%+ Democrat state legislature. If he could reach across the aisle in Massachusetts, adopt healthcare reform and balance their budget, maybe he could break through the gridlock in Washington? Four years has taught us that President Obama has been unable to do what he promised on this score: work together with Congress. Mitt’s record indicates he can.
After nearly four years of economic stagnation, massive unemployment, record-setting debt and government intrusions into the economy that have paralyzed the private sector, the United States needs a new direction. For this reason, The Dispatch urges voters to choose Republican Mitt Romney for president in the Nov. 6 election.
Four years after promising hope and change, and after a deficit-driving $787 billion stimulus program, here is the result:
• 12.1 million unemployed, with an unemployment rate above 8 percent for 43 of the past 44 months.
• 8.6 million working part time because they can’t find full-time work
• 2.5 million who wanted to work, but have stopped looking for jobs.
• In 2009, real median household income was $52,195. By 2011, it had fallen to $50,054
• In 2009, the U.S. poverty rate was 14.3 percent. By 2011, the poverty rate climbed to 15 percent.
• On Obama’s watch, 12 million more Americans joined the food-stamp program, which has reached a record of more than 46 million enrollees.
• Annual federal budget deficits above $1 trillion for the past four years, increasing the national debt to an all-time high of $16 trillion.
… Obama has failed. That is why Mitt Romney is the preferred choice for president. Romney’s adult life has been spent turning around troubled private and public institutions. These turnarounds include scores of companies acquired and restructured by Bain Capital, the investment firm he founded in 1984. Not all were successes, but that is because to a significant degree, many of the companies Bain took on were high-risk. In 1999, he was asked to take over the scandal-plagued and fiscally mismanaged 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City. He quickly streamlined its management, fixed its finances and guaranteed its security, turning it into a success. As governor of Massachusetts, he made tough decisions to lead the state out of a budget deficit, and he did so in a state dominated by Democrats.
As a career businessman and former governor, Romney brings a wealth of executive experience in the private sector and the public sector that dwarfs that of Obama. From working both sides of the government/private-sector equation, he understands how that relationship can aid or impede prosperity. His election would be an immediate signal to the private sector that someone who knows what he is doing is managing the nation’s economic policy. The effect on business confidence would be dramatic and immediate, and business confidence is the vital ingredient needed to spur investment and hiring, the two things that the United States so desperately needs.
In 2008, Americans made a leap of faith when they elevated the inexperienced Obama to the White House. That faith was not rewarded. This time, voters should place their hopes for change in experience, by electing Romney.
Two days after his lackluster first debate performance, President Barack Obama’s re-election hopes got a timely boost. The government’s monthly jobless report for September showed the nation’s unemployment rate fell below 8 percent for the first time since he took office.
If that were the only metric that mattered, the president might credibly argue that the U.S. economy was finally on the right track. Unfortunately for him, and for the American people, he can’t.
… We have little confidence that Obama would be more successful managing the economy and the budget in the next four years. For that reason, though we endorsed him in 2008, we are recommending Romney in this race.
… Now the president and his supporters are attacking Romney because his long-term budget blueprint calls for money-saving reforms to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, three of the biggest drivers of deficit spending. Obama would be more credible in critiquing the proposal if he had a serious alternative for bringing entitlement spending under control. He doesn’t.
… [T]he core of Romney’s campaign platform, his five-point plan, at least shows he understands that reviving the economy and repairing the government’s balance sheet are imperative — now, not four years in the future.
Romney has a strong record of leadership to run on. He built a successful business. He rescued the 2002 Winter Olympics from scandal and mismanagement. As governor of Massachusetts, he worked with a Democrat-dominated legislature to close a $3billion budget deficit without borrowing or raising taxes….
… But after reflecting on his [Obama's] four years in the White House, we also don’t think that he’s the best qualified candidate in this race.
I’m excited to mention that Rush read one of our MRC tweets on the air today. I’m not posting it here on the top because it’s part of this story. To see the tweet he read and hear the audio be sure to continue reading the story below. Thanks, Nate.
Very interesting news today has many heretofore Romney-doubting GOPers taking courage in the swift, hard-hitting capabilities of the Romney campaign. Two “surprise” press conferences were held today, by Romney and Axelrod, but only one ended up being an actual surprise. Both were dominated by the Romney camp. These events happened early enough today that they were actually discussed on Rush and Hannity today, and will certainly make your evening news.
Part One: The Axelrod press conference
A surprise visit by Chief Obama strategist David Axelrod to Boston was publicly announced just last night. Purpose of his “presser”: Dis Romney’s record as Governor.
Oddly, the short notice is somehow enough time for CNN to arrange to have a live feed available. Team Romney springs into action to round up a large group of protesters armed with big signs, and chants.
Romney supporters are waiting on the steps of the capital building as Obama’s advance Team arrives to set up. (Pics below)
Throughout the presser attention is obviously stolen by protesters as they run through a series of chants including: Solyndra, Five more months, We want Mitt, Where are the jobs, Broken record, and more. Axelrod actually responds to protestors at one point with the phrase “You can’t handle the truth.”
Big win for Team Romney as news reports focus on the protestors rather than Axelrod’s anti-Romney message.
Part Two: Romney holds surprise press conference in front of Solyndra
On the other side of the country Team Romney has the entire press corp on a bus with Mitt on board as well. The press are told only that they are going to a secret location and they will be there in one hour.
Less than an hour after Axelrod’s presser ends CNN (and others) break news that Romney will hold press conference at Solyndra.
Mitt highlights the failure of Solyndra as a symbol of Obama’s administration and calls it a huge conflict of interest by Obama.
Conservatives in the blogosphere and on twitter cheer Team Romney for being two steps ahead of the competition
This is one of those days that is great for following news events on twitter. I will enclose only a small number of the great tweets, pictures and videos coming from today’s events. More below the fold. (more…)
Floodgates of support are really opening now for Mitt Romney…
Today, social and fiscal conservative Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn penned a strong op-ed supporting Romney. GOP Representatives (32 of them!) in Massachusetts and Alaska Lt. Gov Mead Treadwell also issued well-muscled letters of support. Eric Cantor also stepped up to the plate for Romney.
They all believe Romney’s years of private sector work and leadership skills seal the deal. Unquestionably, they feel Romney is ready to be wrapped in the presidential mantle.
★UPDATE - Add former First Lady Barbara Bush’s name to the list. She recorded a robo call message for Mitt that is playing throughout Vermont:
“I’m proud to support Romney because he is a leader. What Romney has done in his 25 years in the private sector is precisely what we need a president to do in Washington. Romney has done hard things. He has turned businesses around, told people hard truths about what needed to be done, inspired confidence and overcome excuses.”
America faces the greatest challenges of any in my lifetime. Our debt is now the size of our entire economy. If we don’t change course in the near future, we will face an economic catastrophe far worse than our recent recession.
At the same time, we’re facing a crisis of leadership in Washington. The problems and solutions are widely understood — and far from impossible to implement — yet our so-called leaders have shown little interest in solving problems. President Obama campaigned as a transformational leader, yet he has rejected transformational solutions such as the Simpson-Bowles plan that gave Washington a framework for averting a debt crisis.
Elections are about choices. This November, the most important choice facing the American people will be whether we will demand a solution and avert a debt crisis or whether we will continue to accept the status quo and hope for the best. I’m confident the vast majority of Americans on both sides of the aisle want a solution. The next choice, then, is deciding who is best qualified to enact a solution.
In life, and especially politics, our choices are seldom perfect and often difficult. But it is critically important to make a choice and support the person who is best equipped to solve the urgent problems before us. In my view, that person is Mitt Romney.
From my experience, Washington tends to be divided between two groups — leaders and career politicians. Leaders tend to have a wealth of real-world experience outside of politics and are in office to give rather than take something from their position. Career politicians, on the other hand, mean well but are ill-equipped to solve problems. Their greatest skill is getting re-elected.
★ From Romney’s Press Office – MA Republican Reps (32 signatures!):
If Mitt gets to the White House and has a chance to do for the country what he did for Massachusetts, we will see a turnaround in this country unlike any we have seen before.
Massachusetts Republican Representatives Stand with Mitt
Click on map to enlarge.
Over the course of this election season, we members of the Massachusetts Republican Legislative Caucus, have watched and listened as our former Governor’s record has been scrutinized by his rivals and by the national media. Now it is our turn to speak.
Republicans in Massachusetts never had a stronger leader, a greater defender, or a better friend in the State House than Mitt Romney.
Let’s start with the economy. When Mitt was elected Governor, Massachusetts was on the verge of financial disaster. Workers across the state were being laid off at the rate of thousands a month.
Our state budget was bleeding red ink, and Democratic politicians were proclaiming that only tax increases could fill the gap. Raising taxes, of course, was not Governor Romney’s way. Quite the opposite. With the same energy and intelligence he brings to every challenge he faces, he brought efficiency to our state government. He streamlined our budget and cut unneeded programs.
Without raising taxes—indeed, he cut taxes nineteen times—he balanced the budget every year of his term. By the end of four years, he had turned a $3 billion deficit into a $2 billion rainy-day fund. With the state government’s finances in order, the economy picked up steam. Unemployment at the end of Mitt’s term was 4.7 percent, a rate the state envies now.
But the economy was not the only realm where Mitt was a leader. He cracked down on illegal immigration by vetoing an in-state tuition bill and by authorizing state troopers to detain people who had entered the country illegally. When Democrats caved to the teachers unions and sought to impose a one-year moratorium on publicly-funded charter schools, Mitt successfully turned back their efforts.
Following the big Michigan and Arizona wins this week, the WSJ published an article titled, “Contest Shifts to Super Tuesday’s High Gear.” See excerpts here along with table illustrating the delegate count leading into next Tuesday:
Of course, by prevailing on Tuesday night, Mr. Romney also increases the stakes for his opponents. Mike DuHaime, a Republican strategist who managed Rudy Giuliani’s White House bid in 2008 and remains unaligned this year, said Mr. Romney’s win “creates a great deal of pressure on the other candidates to show strongly next week, or the pressure will mount for them to drop out so as not to unnecessarily drag out the process.”
Sen. Rob Portman, chairman of the Ohio Romney campaign, said he believed Mr. Romney would overtake Mr. Santorum after voters focus on his economic policies and message. “Mitt Romney will provide the type of conservative leadership that we need to spur economic growth and create jobs,” said Mr. Portman.
SUPER TUESDAY DELEGATES
Looking ahead to Super Tuesday, Governor Romney won the Washington caucuses today by a healthy margin. The New York Times reported this:
The victory gives Mr. Romney some momentum heading into the big contests this week on Super Tuesday, when 10 states vote. With 81 percent of the Washington votes counted on Saturday night, Mr. Romney had won about 37 percent, with Mr. Paul at 25 percent, Mr. Santorum at 24 percent and Mr. Gingrich at 11 percent.
“The voters of Washington have sent a signal that they do not want a Washington insider in the White House,” Mr. Romney said in a statement as he campaigned in Ohio.
The article continues after referring to a Santorum comment as to how he would transform Ohio if elected (several more photos too): (more…)
Thus far in the campaign, Rick Santorum has been tickled to ham up being the one who is above the fray. Well, he wasn’t polling high, hasn’t truly been vetted, and up until his 34-vote win in Iowa, wasn’t getting a lot of attention. Interestingly, Santorum gets plenty bristly-haired during the debates (political pundits note that he comes across as mean), and closer inspection of his record could elicit some real squealing from him.
Yesterday, Governor Tim Pawlenty held an enlightening press conference call which highlighted Santorum’s propensity for pork-barrel spending. Here’s the entire call:
Highlights of the Rick Santorum’s Long History Of Pork-Barrel Spending call:
GOV. TIM PAWLENTY: What I wanted to focus this morning on the notion that Rick Santorum is presenting to caucus attendees in Minnesota and to conservatives beyond that Rick Santorum is really as conservative as those caucus attendees and he’s not. If you look at his record overall there’s a number of things that should be concerning about that record to conservatives. And I’ll just focus this morning on the spending and fiscal aspects of that. Rick Santorum has been a champion of earmarks, when he was both in the House and subsequently in the Senate. He reflected on his time in the House at one point by saying that he is no longer a fiscal hawk. And the reason he cited for no longer being a fiscal hawk is because he wanted to spend the surpluses which is not the philosophy or perspective of somebody that conservatives would look to as a strong, unabashed fiscal hawk. In fact he just admitted and disclaimed that he was no longer a fiscal hawk. And his votes and his behavior in the Congress reflected that drift away from fiscal discipline.
He proudly and enthusiastically embraced earmarking. Some of the more well-known examples of earmarking he supported was the so-called ‘Bridge to Nowhere,’ which was one of the biggest earmark debacles in the modern history of the Congress. He supported things like a polar bear exhibit in Pittsburgh that was federally funding under one of these earmarks. He provided a Philadelphia developer an earmark for a project in the Philadelphia area, and there was a developer that he had some other contacts and associations with. He voted numerous times to raise the debt ceiling and here we as a nation facing fiscal crisis, I mean literally on the edge of the fiscal abyss.
We need a next president who’s been strong and proven in fiscal and spending matters, and we had Rick Santorum voting numerous times to raise the debt ceiling. So, he clearly has been part of the big spending establishment in Congress and in the influence peddling industry that surrounds Congress. He has been part of that. He has been a champion of earmarks, and to hold himself out now as somebody who is an unquestionable conservative in these matters, just is not supported by the facts. So we wanted to call that out this morning as part of his record, part of debate back and forth, and the contrast between these candidates, and Rick Santorum is clearly not as conservative on these matters as Minnesota caucus attendees or Republican or conservative activists and the people who are part of the conservative movement more broadly. So that’s the message we wanted to convey with you this morning, but we also wanted to give you a chance to ask questions or make comments about that topic or others that may be of interests to you, or obviously on the eve of the Minnesota caucuses, as well as other contests around the country tomorrow and the Romney campaign is in full gear as you know and there’s a lot of activity going on, so we’ll be delighted to take your questions on any topic related to those things.
Governor Pawlenty also released this statement yesterday:
“Rick Santorum is a nice guy, but he is simply not ready to be President. Plus, he wants Minnesota conservatives to believe he’s as conservative as they are, but he’s not. As a U.S. Senator, he was a leading earmarker and pork-barrel spender. He described himself as ‘very proud’ of the billions of dollars in pork-barrel projects he championed, and promised to defend the wasteful spending. Even in the face of crushing federal debt, Rick Santorum voted for the infamous ‘Bridge to Nowhere.’ That type of leadership will not help us rein in government and slash the unprecedented federal debt.”
Voters need to know about Santorum’s piggy-pork record while serving on Capitol Hill. He loved toting home taxpayer bacon for his state.
By the way, I greatly appreciate Pawlenty’s press conference call and his continuing hard work for Governor Romney.
Disappointingly, Santorum has also been hog-jowled on the campaign trail giving false information about health care in Massachusetts. Click below the fold for a must-read summary from the Romney Press Office:
Well, the final results aren’t final yet . . . but it’s clear that Romney won this important swing state’s caucus, and won it big. (Update . . . Romney did get just over 50%, but the entrance poll results have just been revised this morning, so much of what you see quoted below is somewhat off from what the linked poll says NOW. Sorry, I’m not going back and re-calculating things at this point).
He’s got 43% of the vote with 43% of precincts reporting, but the results of Clark County (Las Vegas) as not coming in as fast as expected. Don’t fret though Romney fans, Mitt will win a majority of the votes and I’m guessing he’ll be somewhere between 52-55% of the total vote when all is said and done. If things track as closely as they are in the entrance polls, Clark County should go for Mitt by over 60% (and they’ve nailed the non-Clark County…rest of NV…percentage at 43%, exactly how the real results have turned out)
Debunking the “Romney won Nevada because of the Mormon factor” myth:
Yes, Mitt dominated among LDS voters with 90% choosing Romney, BUT (and it’s a very big “but”), EVEN IF NOT A SINGLE MORMON WENT TO VOTE, ROMNEY WOULD HAVE WON THE STATE WITH A 42%-26% margin over Gingrich. Romney won Catholics 52%-19% over Newt and “White Evangelical/Born Again” by a solid margin of 46%-26% over the former Speaker.
Debunking the “See, the poor won’t vote for Romney” myth:
On CNN’s coverage tonight, the anchors/pundits seemed to be getting as much mileage as possible out of the fact that the only economic demographic that Romney did NOT win was those that make $30,000 or less (which were only 10% of the voters in NV last night). They were trying to tie this to Romney’s “I’m not concerned about the very poor” comment and even went on to conclude that this “underscores the fact that blue-collar workers, who you can’t win without their support, do not see that this is a guy that will fight for them.” SERIOUSLY?!?!? I realize that these pundits aren’t statisticians, but it’s pretty straightforward to figure out why he didn’t win this demographic. First off, he hardly “lost” this demographic. Paul and Newt both got 31%, and Mitt got 30%, a virtual 3 way tie for first. Secondly, the age of the voter is VERY determinative of income when looking at your youngest age group especially. Voters aged 18-29 were only 8% of the vote (quite similar to the 10% in that income of $30K or less), and Paul won that group 40% to 39% over Romney. Paul has been wining the young college-aged voters in almost every state . . . it’s his base and he’s definitely turning out this group of folks that do not typically vote in a GOP primary. Good for Paul. But these college kids are a HUGE portion of the “makes less than $30,000 year” group, and I don’t think anyone would consider college kids “the very poor,” they are just in a temporary low-income stage of their lives.
“Strong Moral Character;” Mitt good, Newt Very Very Bad:
In perhaps the most revealing entrance poll finding, those that felt a candidate having “Strong Moral Character” was their number one trait they sought in a President, Mitt got 54% of the vote … Newt got 1% of those voters. No, that is not a typo, ONE PERCENT (Paul got 32% and Santorum got 13%). Looks like Nevada voters are pretty good judges of character, eh? THIS IS WHY YOU’RE LOSING NEWT!! YOU BLAME MITT FOR YOUR LAGGING VOTE TALLIES, BUT YOU NEED TO LOOK IN THE MIRROR BUDDY!
Debunking the “Strong Conservatives and Tea Party voters don’t like Romney” myth:
Like New Hampshire and Florida, Romney, once again, won self-identified conservatives and supporters of the Tea Party in Nevada. This time though, he won A MAJORITY of these groups. Romney beat Newt 54%-21% among conservative voters and 50%-23% among Tea Party supporters. Yet I still see pundit after pundit say that Romney still has a lot of work to do to appeal to conservatives (while they “obviously” love Newt). CAN THEY NOT READ A POLL?!? Among “very conservative” voters he Mitt still won 49%-24% over Newt, and even beat him 39%-30% among those “strongly supportive of Tea Party.” Some narratives are hard to kill, but when a state in the Northeast (NH), Southeast (FL), and West (NV) all show Romney winning conservatives and Tea Party supporters I think it’s proof positive against that media meme. The real take-away/new-media-narrative should be that Newt has work to do to appeal to as many conservatives as Romney has been.
Odds and Ends:
The Economy was the number one (even by a majority) issue on voters minds, and Romney carried these voters by 62%. By an even larger margin, the candidate quality of “Can Defeat Obama” was number one, and Romney absolutely dominated here with 73% of the vote. WOW! ”Right Experience” was the top quality to only 15% of voters, but Romney cleaned up here too with 55% (Rick Santorum pulled in a whopping 1% here). Romney also continues to dominate the Suburbs winning with 69% there; historically this is a key demographic for winning a general election.
Newt and some liberals keeps saying that Mitt’s trying to suppress turnout in order to win. When we look at the field compared to 2008, however, I don’t think it’s any surprise that turnout is lower. Last time around there was much more diversity, and much more famous personalities in the field. You had a Pro-Choice candidate with strong personal appeal/popularity in Rudy Giuliani, War Hero John McCain, popular actor Fred Thompson, and folksy former pastor Mike Huckabee in addition to Mitt and Paul all in the race this far into the process. Substituting character-challenged Gingrich and personality/experience-challenged Rick Santorum in place of Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, and Huckabee is beyond even comparing apples and oranges. They all had more money and organization that either Newt or Rick too and that is how turnout is driven. Like all of Newt’s complaints/excuses, this one rings hollow as well.
CONGRATS MITT AND NEVADA!! ANOTHER GREAT WIN FOR ROMNEY!!