Romney Wins Arizona and Michigan

Bump and Update, 8:25 p.m.: Romney has taken both states.

Update, 7: 30 pm MT: Romney takes Arizona and leads in Michigan.

Results should start coming in shortly for the Michigan and Arizona Republican primaries. Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum? Who would you rather see Obama face in November? [More...]

CBS election results are here.

Google will also tracking live results for both states, accessible here.

You can also follow #AZPrimary and #cnnelection on Twitter.

< Interpol Announces Arrest of 25 Anonymous Hackers | Kim DotCom Wins Bail Appeal >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Aww, just tell Romney (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Towanda on Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 07:24:42 PM EST
    to go to his Repub Rules Committee and throw out all of the Michigan delegates, anyway.

    Hey, it worked in 2008.

    Half of them (3.00 / 1) (#4)
    by CoralGables on Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 07:38:26 PM EST
    have already been tossed haven't they?

    Yes. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Towanda on Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 07:39:48 PM EST
    Or not.  

    After 2008, we know that anything can happen.


    I've said again and again (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by the capstan on Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 08:06:17 PM EST
    I will not vote this year, as I did not 2008.

    HOWEVER, I will go to the polls if St. Orum is on the ballot.  He is just too crazy to risk.

    I see 10% of the primary voters in Michigan claimed to be Democrats.  If the idea is to make the Repugs run their worst candidate, here's news: St. Orum is beyond the pale; don't tempt fate.

    Yup. Elevating St Orum any more is (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 09:00:40 PM EST
    just unacceptable to me. He needs to be stomped out as soon as possible. Beyond the pale says it all. No, just no.

    Have to disagree (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 08:54:38 PM EST
    Wouldn't the far right be discredited more by being rejected by their own party?

    To me the question is not what is best for Obama or Dems. To elevate Santorum and his ideology is dangerous, even of we only want it elevated temporarily. If Santorum is the candidate and loses, it will still be progress for that ideology. They will just make excuses as to why he was the wrong messenger, and their will be plenty of reasons, due to his horrible personality,

    Not to mention, what of he were to beat Obama? Who wants to risk that?

    Let them. They will get beat in 2016 too then. (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 09:40:40 PM EST
    Sorry, I just can't think that Santorum as the nominee is good in any possible way. He is truly sick.

    I tend to agree with you on that (none / 0) (#16)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 01:13:59 AM EST
    Much as part of me rather likes the idea of having the rawest version of GOP ideology up for a national vote once and for all.

    Santorum actually has a very good (in GOP terms) economic message to blue-collar workers, but being who he is, he's incapable of shutting up about the incredibly ugly social beliefs, which sucks all the air out of his campaign message.


    No (none / 0) (#18)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 01:58:05 AM EST
    they'll just say "Romney lost because he wasn't a true conservative."

    I needed Santorum to lose (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 07:17:41 AM EST
    I needed a little reassuring that evil hasn't completely taken over the Republican base.

    What happened pal... (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 09:24:33 AM EST
    I thought he had your vote if you were a Michigan resident?

    Just messin' with ya...but seriously, Sh*ttylube coulda used it, exit polls show only 2 or 3 women voted for him in the whole damn state;)


    I was never pulling for Santorum (none / 0) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 02:09:10 AM EST
    I was going to vote for Newt.  Isn't it time he was in the lead again?  Too much Mitt and Santorum lately.  Does Newt have one more resurrection in him?  Probably not this late in the game.  And Santorum has also proven himself "too disgusting" to carry the nomination.

    It's probably too much to ask that Santorum even notice that women do count for something after getting stomped a bit.  I was very busy today, but heard on news that he attempted to have some sort of public celebration of the strong women in his family.

    Just being the anti-Romney will not beat Obama.  You can't be a vile pig and have any real shot.


    I wish Obama was running against a liberal (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Dadler on Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 10:12:39 PM EST
    Anyone who moved him to the left.  Nixon would be good.  Kidding.  Sort of.  

    Liberals (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 04:35:34 AM EST
    have faded into various caves and other places that are shielded from the light. They are frightened. They are vanquished.

    So is the left.


    Sort of but not really (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 06:49:06 AM EST
    I think it's more that they've gone underground in plain sight.

    A lot are analogous to people who walk into public spaces where there are cameras recording every move, but look and act "normal", nod and say "mmmm..." in response to questions, and don't look at the cameras while they go about their business, so they don't attract attention, I think.


    I wish Obama would have had to run (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 07:21:10 AM EST
    against Huntsman.  That would have woke him up in the morning.  I was just listening to Morning Joe discuss that Santorum will not be disciplined.  He frustrated one of his operatives.  He won't stick to a constant consistent message and a stump speech, and Joe says that Huntsman had the same problem.

    I wish Obama would run (none / 0) (#36)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 11:13:31 AM EST
    against the weakest person possible and win and then we deal with how to move him left after we avoid the chance of a conservative in office.

    That seems like the optimal wish.


    Of course (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 11:20:43 AM EST
    Because once he has no one to be accountable to anymore, his true liberal prowess will come out and, after not being able to get things done with a divided Congress, he will nagically be able to move left with the same Congress (or Republican Senate).

    And Mr. Roark and Tatoo will soon be welcoming you to Fantasy Island.


    Ze plane, boss! (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 12:22:55 PM EST
    By the same token, jbindc (none / 0) (#39)
    by christinep on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 11:59:03 AM EST
    What do think Romney would become if he were elected?  Since you have spoken positively about Romney, it is fair to ask what you regard as his positive trays?  Who is Romney...other than what he has shown during the Republican primary?

    I'm not sure what you mean (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 12:36:53 PM EST
    By "speaking positively" about Romney, except for saying all along that he will be the nominee.  That was just using analysis based in reality and common sense.

    I also don't know what that has to do with ABG's foray into fantasy.....


    Romney will do (none / 0) (#40)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 12:18:34 PM EST
    what Romney thinks he has to do in order to get elected, and keep getting elected.  He ran to the left to get elected governor of Massachusetts, and now he's running to the right to get the Republican nomination.  "Who is Romney?"  That's a good question.  I wonder if even Romney knows.  When it comes to Romney, I'll steal a quote from Gertrude Stein:  "There is no there there."

    Just like Obama did and will do (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 12:37:55 PM EST
    Just as all candidates do.

    Lots of truth to that (none / 0) (#46)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    And I'm certainly not excusing Obama for all his broken promises- I've made my displeasure with him well-known in the past.  But Willard's suit seems to be particularly empty.  The clothes have no emperor (or would-be emperor), as it were.

    yea (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by CST on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 01:14:47 PM EST
    this whole "they're all the same" argument feels a bit weak.  I think it's pretty clear that Romney takes the fake to another level.  Maybe he's just not as good at hiding it, but that matters in politics.

    And his tendency to say the wrong thing at the wrong time isn't helping him much.  Everytime he opens his mouth he reinforces his flaws.


    Yes... (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 01:20:57 PM EST
    he's just not very good at hiding it, thats the ticket.

    Say what you will about Obama and Bush and Clinton, but they got nothin' on Mitt when it comes to inauthenticity.  The guy reeks of it.


    he couldn't improvise (none / 0) (#51)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 01:27:44 PM EST
    a fart after a baked bean dinner. As the man said..

    Well (none / 0) (#52)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 01:31:01 PM EST
    Obama has convinced some around here that he' s actually a liberal, and he, too, certainly said just about anything to get elected.

    Politicians lie when their mouths are moving and will say anything.  Thinking Obama is any different is laughable at best.


    I think people mostly convinced (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 02:11:58 PM EST
    themselves that Obama was a liberal, much the same way someone traveling in the desert for years thinks he or she sees an oasis - because they so want it to be.  The assumption was that any Democrat would be a force for moving the country to the left; an actual examination of Obama's history would have tacked more than a couple question marks to that assumption, I think.

    I don't have a clue who or what Romney is or what he wants to be - other than president.  At least with Santorum, you pretty much get a preview of the insanity he wants to bring the country, but with Romney?  He's as hard to pin down as jello.

    In some ways, I think debates between Obama and Romney would be a festival of incoherence on positions, policy and vision.



    they are individual human beings (none / 0) (#53)
    by CST on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 01:35:11 PM EST
    not lemmings.  Of course they are different.

    They are politicians (none / 0) (#62)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 02:57:27 PM EST
    Who want to be president come January 20, 2013.

    They will say and do anything to be there.


    and some of them (none / 0) (#63)
    by CST on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 03:06:42 PM EST
    are better at it than others.

    Obama may have convinced (none / 0) (#56)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 02:02:50 PM EST
    some that he's a "liberal" (insert hollow laugh from me), but he never, ever fooled me.  I have followed his career since he was in the Illinois State Senate, and I was never impressed with him.  (Caveat: nor was I a Hillary supporter, and I'm saying this before the usual Obama supporters jump in and accuse me of this.)  I am, was, and will always be a way-to-the-left, pinko, socialist, DFH.  Obama is a neoliberal as far as I'm concerned, with more than a soupçon of neoconservatism thrown in.  That's what he is, and if people support that, it is certainly their right.  But I have never thought that he was any kind of a true liberal, and neither should they.

    Bwahaha! (none / 0) (#60)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 02:41:28 PM EST
    An insult to Oakland?  Or to Paris?  She spent far, far more time in Paris than in Oakland.  You could also perceive of it as an insult to Allegheny, PA (where she was born), Vienna, Baltimore, and Cambridge, MA (she went to Radcliffe, after all).  In my estimation, Paris gets to claim her (and cry"insult") more than any other city she ever lived in.   ;-)

    And besides, (none / 0) (#68)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 09:15:12 AM EST
    Oakland's not so bad.  It's got some very nice things to see and do.  Although it may not have as much "thereness" as Paris, or San Francisco.  Of course, back when Stein was there, it may have just been a suburb-type of place.

    If wishes were horses, then (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 09:39:49 PM EST
    beggars would ride...or so the old saying goes.

    If Obama hasn't moved left by now, guess what?  He ain't goin' there.

    It's just not how he rolls.


    We already have a conservative in office, ABS. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 09:29:13 PM EST
    That is the problem.

    Whatever happened (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 10:53:48 PM EST
    to Newt? Is he done for good yet?

    Newt (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 04:33:34 AM EST
    was never a factor.

    He was propped up for awhile to stimulate interest in an otherwise pointless exercise.


    Newt had better win his (none / 0) (#15)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 11:21:41 PM EST
    home state of Georgia next Tuesday or he will be finished....

    Newt didn't even (none / 0) (#17)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 01:17:03 AM EST
    bother to contest Arizona and Michigan.  His last and only shot for a respectable finish and exit is to do well in the South on super-Tuesday.

    He's in it (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 07:21:56 AM EST
    To attract money :)

    Money, publicity, and the fact (none / 0) (#33)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 09:54:32 AM EST
    that Newt is truly "a legend in his own mind," and I think that he actually thought he could win.  Never underestimate the size of Newt's ego.   ;-)

    Newt has been banking on SuperTuesday (none / 0) (#41)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 12:20:16 PM EST
    next week, when there are lots of southern states up for grabs, particularly Georgia.

    Feel the Newtmentum!


    Mittens is like those little (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 10:28:05 AM EST
    carnival dolls that get knocked down only to bounce right up--having, so far, survived hits from Trump's hair-balls, Pawlenty's charisma, Bachman's bibles, Huntsman's gold coin, Paul's soft balls, Cains's  Pepperoni, Gingrich's moon-rocks, and, now, Santorum's communion wafers.

    So it is onward for this sort-of (according to some Evangelicals) Christian soldier, as we wait for Mitten's next attempts to connect with the ordinary voter.  But, the guy just can't help himself; when he opens his mouth, one percent falls out.

    I don't know if his wife owns a couple of houses in each of the next states, or if she does, if they are of the right height, just like the state's trees. Of course, we do know that he will never pander or set his hair on fire in the process,.  He will have his hands full in Georgia not having any friends other than  Newt, but he probably knows someone who owns Georgia.  
    As for Santorum, how does he explain his Michigan loss?  Could it be Satan?

    Don't care (none / 0) (#2)
    by CoralGables on Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 06:51:37 PM EST
    who he faces, but I want the sideshow and the spending to continue.

    To make Super Tuesday a lot more fun, when I'm expecting Romney to probably lose 5 of the 10 states, I'm pulling for a Santorum win in Michigan.

    Romney has spent $65 million so far (none / 0) (#9)
    by Towanda on Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 09:17:10 PM EST
    according to Howard Fineman in tonight's television punditing.  And for that, he now holds a narrow lead over Santorum -- who, so far, is winning the Michigan counties with the big, "liberal," college campuses, while Romney is taking Motor City, Detroit, despite his bad-mouthing of auto workers and the bailout.

    Up is down, as I don't know what the Michiganders are thinking.  Perhaps that will turn around with more results.  

    Watching Jennifer Granholm on Current TV (none / 0) (#11)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 09:35:24 PM EST
    She said that the Detroit area and Wayne Co. is also where all the big money is- Romney's base. So from that perspective she expected him to take that part of the state.

    Right on the money (none / 0) (#19)
    by cal1942 on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 02:46:46 AM EST

    Some interesting facts (none / 0) (#23)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 07:07:40 AM EST
    From the CNN link:

    Democrats made up 1 in 10 voters in Michigan. Independents made up 3 in 10 voters - 40% of people who voted in the primary were not Republicans. 50% of voters said they will definitely vote for Romney if he is the nominee, and only 36% said the same of Santorum.

    Romney won those that work full time AND those households where anyone had been laid off in the last 3 years.

    He won both married and unmarried voters and both men and women. He tied Santorum with voters who disapproved of the auto bailout and he won those voters who approved of the bailout - all despite his now famous op-ed.

    Santorum lost Catholics!

    And, as I predicted - Romney won the Detroit metro area, tied in the Lansing / Ann Arbor (2 college towns) area, and lost western Michigan and the UP.

    Lost Catholics (none / 0) (#28)
    by smott on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 08:58:40 AM EST
     - To a Mormon for cripes sake.

    But  Opus Dei Ricky is deeply unpopular amongst mainstream Catholics.


    Most Catholics (none / 0) (#48)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 01:12:14 PM EST
    Do not believe as Santorum does.

    I know I don't (none / 0) (#61)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 02:50:11 PM EST
    That's why I stopped going to mass.

    The Bishops are human (none / 0) (#64)
    by christinep on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 07:02:49 PM EST
    See, especially, the difficult conundrum in Philadelphia--a situation that may well have lots of implications.  The Philly situation (as related by Philly.com) suggests a difficult time for the Conference should they elect to pursue political muscle in the upcoming election.  The upshot will be:  Tend to your own house first.

    Many years ago, jbindc, I walked away...mostly in relation to a new marriagen& the dilemma presented by the 1968 encyclical "Humanae Vitae".  When my dad die about a dozen years later, I came back.  Now, incredibly, the same set of contraception issues present themselves.  This time, I won't walk away...and not just because the years make the contraception question personally moot.  My point:  the relationship with God  and your faith is too central to let it be decided by the human Bishops' power-play or by their would-be sycophant, Santorum.  And, thankfully, most Catholics that I know have come to be at peace with that situation even while at odds with some extremely conservative Bishops over this one issue.


    And it's Mittens Mittens Mittens (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 07:25:04 AM EST
    I expect the same on Super Tuesday.  My neighbor across the street who is a Republican said she was voting for Obama, but that was when the lead horse of the Republican party was talking about Moon colonies and how evil contraception is.  I'll bet she votes for Mitt.

    Mitt Romney (none / 0) (#30)
    by CST on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 09:46:32 AM EST
    squeeks out a win on the "at least he's not completely insane" platform.

    I'd put money on him losing Michigan in the general though.

    As for who I'd rather see win this thing, I don't really care, none of these guys are an acceptable alternative.  Frankly I don't think any of them will win.  As for how the GOP base will react to a loss - I make no bets.  They don't seem to have gotten more moderate after McCain lost, but they didn't exactly get more moderate after Bush won either.  I think they are where they are and no amount of losing is going to quell the tea-party rage.

    There's no question that none of the (none / 0) (#38)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 11:38:04 AM EST
    Republicans vying for the nomination are acceptable, not in any way, shape or form, but I do think it matters who the eventual nominee is because of how Obama will position himself against that nominee.

    I don't know if any of you have read the Rick Pearlstein article in Rolling Stone, but I think it makes a lot of sense, and speaks to my concerns about what lies ahead - both in the coming campaign and, should Obama win, the four years that follow.

    Here are a few salient paragraphs:

    Barack Obama knew it too. [that after years of Republicans in control of all three branches of government, America overwhelmingly was ready for liberal solutions] He just wouldn't say it. He refused to criticize right-wing ideology. Or to make a full-throated case that Democrats offered an ideological alternative.

    Instead, his favorite campaign line on the Republican record was a story about competence: The Republicans "drove the country into the ditch," and "now they want the keys back." But Republicans aren't bad drivers; they drive exactly where they want to go, pedal to the metal. Sure, they sometimes compromise on tactics - certainly Reagan did. But he, and they, never waver on strategic aims. They plant their flag in an uncompromising position, and wait for the world to come around - which, quite often, it eventually does. This is because in a media environment based on the ideology of "balance," in which anything one of the parties insists upon must be given equal weight to whatever the other party says back, the party that plants its ideological flag further from the center makes the center move. And that is how America changes. You set the stage for future changes by shifting the rhetoric of the present.

    [snip] ...Obama never attempts that [to define reality]. Instead, he ratifies his opponent's reality, by folding it into his original negotiating position. And since the opponent's preferred position is always further out than his own, even a "successful" compromise ends up with the reality looking more like the one the Republicans prefer. A compromise serves to legitimize.


    Right-wing change relies on leadership like that - Democrats who don't plant a flag, who refuse to render the bad guys "controversial,' and who never stake their claim on apparently "insane" ideas of their own - like proposals to pass a federal law desegregating public accommodations.
    And resolute sanity? It can help manage a country just fine. It just cannot change it much. For that, Obama can't just try to play chess. He has to tell us the direction he wants the country to go.

    So, as far as the campaign goes, we're better off with a GOP nominee who isn't all the way over to the right, but sadly, I think that Republicans will just keep hammering away at where they want to be, and Obama will keep legitimizing it, so however disappointing the first term was in not moving the country left, I don't believe the four years from 2013 through 2016 aren't going to see a pivot in that direction.


    Romney only gets half the delegates from MI (none / 0) (#31)
    by Farmboy on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 09:50:46 AM EST
    Santorum gets the other half. Not much of win when you tie in the category that matters.

    "much of A win" (none / 0) (#32)
    by Farmboy on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 09:52:17 AM EST
    Went from preview to post too quickly. Mea culpa.

    Romney (none / 0) (#34)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 10:07:38 AM EST
    Has to win about 50% of all remaining delegates to win the nomination.  Santorum has to win 53-55%, and everyone else needs to win about 67%.

    And Santorum is not on the Virginia ballot and looks to have a h ard time coming up in Ohio.


    Romney's money will carry him (none / 0) (#43)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 12:23:29 PM EST
    to the nomination.

    There really hasn't been much doubt about that....

    He is, however, taking increasingly conservative positions to secure the nomination though.


    And will (none / 0) (#47)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 01:11:08 PM EST
    Choose a more conservative running mate (Marco Rubio) as an attack dog so he can move back to the middle.

    Voters have short attention spans.


    The Republican (none / 0) (#54)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 01:51:56 PM EST
    rank and file want Rubio as VP....but he has said "no" more firmly than the others....

    The revelation that he was a Mormon growing up and through high school will make it more complicated to be on the ticket with Romney.


    You may be right (none / 0) (#55)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 02:00:33 PM EST
    But powerful Dems seem to think so.

    Dems should root for Romney (none / 0) (#69)
    by diogenes on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 11:24:46 AM EST
    If Santorum wins then the convention would draft Chris Christie, who would whip President Obama.  Mitt Romney is not such a strong candidate.