Palin Helps Romney Win Alaska

Posted on Comments

WASHINGTON, Pennsylvania
Mitt Romney has a powerful ally in his effort to win the Republican nomination: Sarah Palin, who told a Fox News reporter last night that she voted for Newt Gingrich.

Gingrich got 1,834 votes in the Alaska caucuses, giving the former House Speaker 14.2% of the vote, good for a fourth-place finish behind third-place finisher Ron Paul (3,105 votes, 24%), runner-up Rick Santorum (3,762 votes, 29%) and winner Romney (4,225, 32.6%).

Gingrich also placed fourth Tuesday in caucuses in North Dakota (962 votes, 8.5%) and Idaho (940 votes, 2.1%), and the primaries in Vermont (4,608 votes, 8.1%) and Massachusetts (16,756 votes, 4.6%). Gingrich placed third in Ohio (14.6%), Tennessee (24%), and Oklahoma (27.5%).

Gingrich’s vote total in Alaska was more than four times as large as Romney’s 463-vote margin over Santorum. In Ohio, Gingrich’s third-place total (175,375) was 16.7 times larger than Romney’s 10,508-vote margin over Santorum.

In related news, Texas Gov. Rick Perry — who quit the presidential race Jan. 19 and endorsed Gingrich — was still on the ballot in Ohio, as was former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who dropped out Jan. 16 and endorsed Romney. Between them, Perry and Huntsman got 13,843 votes in Tuesday’s Ohio primary.

UPDATE: This post seems to have stirred some anger from people who think that my summary of Neutral Objective Facts was intended as a personal disparagement of Sarah Palin.

Of course, I would have enthusiastically supported Governor Palin, had she seen fit to run for president — see my coverage of her Labor Day speech in New Hampshire — but she decided against it. Another source of anger about this post was expressed by my young friend Jamie:

How come you hate Newt so much?

I replied in the comments, but given the rage reaction this post seems to have provoked, I’ll quote my reply here:

I don’t “hate” him, Jamie. But as a presidential candidate, Newt is utterly implausible. There is simply no way in hell a twice-divorced Republican, married to his former mistress — with whom he had an extramarital affair in the midst of the Clinton impeachment scandal — is going to be elected president of the United States.
Not going to happen. Period.
Gingrich’s rhetorical skills are admirable, but his biography makes him unelectable. This is just the reality of politics, and people who would like to ignore Newt’s biography are simply deluded.
It’s not a matter of policy or ideology. I don’t accuse Newt or his supporters of being insufficiently conservative. They are, however, insufficiently realistic about what it takes to succeed in presidential politics, and their admiration for Newt the Great Debater is blinding them to the unavoidable obstacle to Gingrich’s candidacy. Newt is wasting time and money (and his supporters are wasting their votes) on a campaign that was doomed from the outset.
These are, I assert, Neutral Objective Facts. You may dispute the facts, but I guarantee you that Newt Gingrich will not win the GOP nomination.
Not this year. Not ever.

This is my summary of what is, rather than my personal opinion of what ought to be, and I understand that many people wish that Gingrich’s debate skills were sufficient to offset the liabilities of his biography, but they’re not.

It seems that the online world has become a place where we are so accustomed to people expressing opinions that we have become prone to regard simple statements of fact —e.g., “Newt Gingrich will never be elected president, nor nominated by the Republican Party for that office” — as if they were merely opinions, which might be argued out of existence.

Having supported a lot of long-shot underdogs over the years, I recognize why people might vote for a completely hopeless candidate like Newt. But when the hopelessness was so obvious before his campaign ever began, it ill behooves Newt’s supporters to disparage the motives of those who are guilty of no sin more grievous than stating Neutral Objective Facts.

125 comments

  4. Of course, there is absolutely no reason to assume that more of the Gingrich vote would go to Santorum than Romney.  That’s a fantasy – first perpetrated by Gingrich when he was demanding Santorum withdraw after South Carolina. 

    The neutral and objective FACT of primary campaigns is that when a candidate drops out, the biggest share of his voters tend to go to the frontrunner.  This has been demonstrated time and time again in both parties since the primary system took over in the ’70s and ’80s.

    In FACT, there has never been a case where a candidate dropped out and his support then propelled or helped anyone EXCEPT the frontrunner at the time clinch the nomination.  NEVER.  Not once.

    So the idea it would happen now is just another desperate fantasy, a way to find an excuse for failure, a way to blame someone else.

  6.  Newt isn’t “only” divorced.  He’s divorced twice, both for being caught cheating with an employee.  He also has quick a few undisclosed scandals which went away when he resigned, according to Emmett Tyrrell, who has no dog in this hunt.

    As Tyrrell points out, if he knows of several, the Dems know of more.

    But Newt isn’t despised for his infidelity or ethics.  It is more because he is a nasty, unlikeable person.

  8.  Palin supporting Gingrich should tell you something, that Gingrich is the only candidate who is acceptably conservative, and probably the only true federalist in the bunch. And bear in mind, Santorum is probably closer to Sarah when it comes to social issues. But there’s that nasty little perception that he’s a Big Government Conservative and way too much at odds with the libertarian wing of the party.

    So why then should Sarah support Santorum, again?

  9.  I’m saying it is not correct to assume his support would go to Santorum more than to Romney. 

    I think Santorum has the only shot at Romney head-to-head, though.  After losing Ohio, his only chance is getting Gingrich out.  But there is no automatic transfer of support, and it is ridiculous to pretend there is.

    My recommendation is that Santorum forget Illinois (where he also failed to qualify for four district delegate ballots) and take his case to Alabama and Mississippi.  If he can beat Newt in both those states, he can make the argument Newt should step aside – and there will be no imaginable path to the nomination for Gingrich if that happens.

    If he can’t beat Newt now in the South, Romney wins by attrition.  It’s that simple:  history, and math.

  10. Yeah, Newt is so nasty and unlikeable that Sarah Palin voted for him because he’s the most cheerful.

    Sorry, but Sarah Palin has forgotten more about politics than you know.
     

  11.  Keeping repeating that same lie does not make it true, Adjoran.  The people that pushed Gingrich out of the Speakership say differently.

    Whatever else, and I say this as both an ally and a
    tormentor of Speaker Gingrich, he did not resign in disgrace. His
    leadership was key in getting us to the majority. His inspiration helped
    keep us there: twice. But after the 1998 midterm election, with a presidential campaign approaching and Governor George W. Bush emerging
    as our likely leader with a real chance to regain the presidency, we
    needed a speaker who could manage the House not an idea leader. So like a
    business changing direction, we changed leadership.

    There are plenty of reasons to oppose Newt Gingrich. I happen to support Rick Santorum. But the speaker has been
    unfairly maligned by Mitt Romney, and the full story needs to be told.

  12. The Palinistas haven’t figured out that she will never get elected because of her governorship-quitting decision, but  they will continue to gear up for 2016 and an unending slobbering of her virtues over the next four years, no matter who wins in 2012. Gee, I can hardly wait. But I agree with you that Gingrich has virtually no chance to garner the nomination. However, IMO, the big story last night was, besides Romney’s OH squeaker–which solidifies his status as the world’s weakest frontrunner, was Paul’s finish in VA at 40%. Huh? Everywhere else Paul was at 9%, 10%…but in VA…a huge 40%? I hoping that anomaly was not a a pro-Paul vote, but clearly anti-Romney vote because Virginians had no other choice. BTW, thank you for your blogging sanity these days. Yours is the first one I check in the morning so I’m not depressed all day about that craptastic Romney being stuffed down our throats. 

  18. Nice blinders you have there, Richard.  Hope you don’t have to look anywhere but forward.

    Just keep going “la la la Rick Santorum is a great conservative that never betrayed the base” and you’ll never have to face any facts that don’t fit your narrative.

  19. >” besides Romney’s OH squeaker–which solidifies his status as the world’s weakest frontrunner”

    Lots of nonsense being written here. It made no practical difference who “won” Ohio in terms of vote total – that was a beauty contest, for bragging rights.  n terms of delegates it made no difference. Iif Santroum had eked out a couple of thousand vote “victory” in the popular vote he would STILL have walked away with a lot fewer delegates.

    The delegate count says that the Romney is the solid frontrunner. So does the overall total of votes cast in every state.

  20. If anybody bothers to look at the Ohio exit polls, you’ll see that once again Romney defeated Santorum  by a fair margin among Republicans, and that Santorum kept it close via his support from Democrats and independents. (This also happened in Michigan)

    Which tends to undermine the storyline about how Santorum is supposedly leading the conservative rebellion against the liberals and moderates.

  21.  I never claimed he was kicked out of the Speaker’s chair over ethics – I have ALWAYS said it was because of incompetence, which is EXACTLY what your link says.  Souder  is far kinder to Gingrich than most others from those days, which is why so few of the hundreds who served with him have endorsed him.  If he were HALF as great as Speaker as he claims, why haven’t more of them come forward to support him?

  23. Mitt is wasting time and money if he doesn’t add some excitement. Maybe he should set his hair on fire.

  24. Great.  So our next president gets chosen by grudge-holders,  party-before-country types, and the PDS afflicted.

    After this November, I will definitely not be caucusing with “Conservatives” or Republicans any more. The lack of principles just collapses the effort.

  25.  You got it. I will vote for whoever the GOP nominates this time around. But if they lose big, and that does pave the way for Palin in 2016, lets just say that would suit me fine.

  27.  Well Santorum has never denied that he is appealing to blue collar union members, who generally tend to be moderate to conservative Democrats so its not like he’s being deceptive, especially since these folks also tend to be social conservatives. Where he messed up was in dissing the libertarian wing of the party, something he definitely can’t win without.

  28. I had plenty of arithmetic teachin’ in school.  Enough to understand that three  plus three is still five, no matter what anyone says.

  29.  If you expect to get anything done worth doing nowadays you have to put party before country, for the simple fact that we no longer have a country. What we have now is a Balkanized facade.

  30.  You apparently missed the fisking that “takedown” got the last several times people posted it here and elsewhere.

    Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

    You can attach all the meaning you want to that weak effort by Ericson–no champion of conservatism, by the way–but Santorum and Gingrich are archetypical conservatives.  That much is undeniable.

    Whether they meet your approval or not is strictly your problem, not theirs.

    Yes, they are flawed men, as are we all.  But flawed men who worked their entire lives in support of conservative political causes.  The data on that overwhelms anything produced to the contrary.

  31.  Yes.  People are willing to vote for ABO (AKA “Mitt”) unless it’s Newt?  That doesn’t square.

    If one can bend over for Romney, they’d be twice as likely to grab ankles for Newt.

  32. Provide a link or it didn’t happen, K-Bob.

    Maybe Santorum was on Ambien when he made all those non-conservative votes.  Yeah, that must be it.

  33. I think she’s putting a ring in Romney’s nose by staying out in front supporting conservatives.

    You find almost no one on the left willing to criticize Obama–except, of course for the easy lay of tepid criticism for not being radical enough.

    I somehow doubt Palin will suddenly go all compliant if Mitt wins in November.  (Not without being made VP or Sec. Energy.)

    Romney’s gonna be Nixon all over again, without the clever, political arm-twisting skills.

  35. >” its not like he’s being deceptive”

    I never said that HE is being deceptive. Some of his supporters, however …

  37. EVERY contested Convention in modern history has lead to the eventual loss of the Presidency.  That’s what people are voting on now.

    The math for Santorum to become the nominee is now impossible.  At this point, the ABRs are voting for a deadlocked convention.  If Romney comes in with the most delegates, he’s going to be the nominee even if Newt and Santorum deny him a majority.

    I didn’t get “my way” in this Primary, but it’s time we moved on.  I care more about my country than I do about holding some ridiculous grudge.

    if we’re doing this in August, Obama will win despite $5 gas and 8% unemployment. 

  42.  Well, you know what boring looks like, that’s for sure. *g*

    Question about Mitt: which speeches on which days count as his official positions?  Does it work like alternate side of the street parking?

  45.  I didn’t say it should be that way, but that’s just what its devolved to, thanks mainly to the influence of the progressive left over the Democrat Party, and their apparatchiks in the media. The RINOs who want to “compromise” with them have only empowered them further.

  46. Neutral Objective Fact:

    Assume primary voters aren’t stupid, after all the whole herd doesn’t find its way to the polls for a primary. If a voter pulls the lever for Gingrich as their first choice, might it not be reasonable to assume their second choice is most likely Romney?

    Because why would a smart voter throw way their vote on a loser like Gingrich if they had a strong preference for Santorum over Romney?

  47.  Its not about holding a grudge, and there’s nothing ridiculous about it. It’s about standing up for principle and not allowing the party elites and their allies to ramrod and force their will on the rank and file of the party they know damn good and well they can’t win without. THEY are the ones who’ve allowed what should have been an easy election to make them as crazed as a shark in a pool of fresh blood. THEY are the ones who have thrown US under the bus. THEY are the ones who are ruining everything, its not OUR fault if we don’t play alone with them. WE want change. THEY want the status quo. WE are not THEIR hopeless, helpless pawns unless we allow it.

  49.  I kind of half way agree with you here, but there’s a larger point you’re not seeing. With all of Mitts money and organizational advantage, he should have beat Santorum by at least five or six percentage points, if not more. The fact that he had such a hard time and still barely pulled it out does not bode well for him and shows him to be a very weak candidate. And it gets even worse, because in reality, Santorum has been shooting himself in the ass for the last month almost every day, and this might be the real reason Mitt won his little victory. Not that he was such a strong, good candidate, but because Santorum was such a poor one.

  50. Neutral Objective Fact-

    Sarah Palin has to all intents and purposes endorsed Newt Gingrich. In other words, I have my marching orders. Onward to the Kentucky Primary.

Comments are closed.