Open Chat... All Day, Every Day! Express Your Views, Debate, and Challenge the Views of Others!

In order to keep up with the nature of free, spirited debate, I wanted to place the chat feature at the top of the homepage. This ensures people can come here and share their views on anything they wish and not have it be related to any specific discussion. Here, people can share ideas, links, and views "unmoderated" and an their own pace. To me, this makes The Elephant in the Room blog truly a place for debate.

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Republican Caucuses - Colorado and Minnesota / Missouri Non-Binding Primary

Is this Super Tuesday lite? In the Colorado and Minnesota caucuses there are 36 and 40 delegates at stake, respectively. In the Missouri non-binding primary there are none. Missouri holds its official caucus on March 17th.

Why is this significant? Why is there so much attention focused on two caucuses one month ahead of Super Tuesday? One word: momentum.

What would a 3-state sweep tonight mean for Mitt Romney? Would the remaining candidates bow out in spite of promises to fight through until the end? Would it mean a clinch in the name of inevitability? What would happen if these three states were split among three candidates? Would that knock Romney off kilter? Many news outlets are reporting that Rick Santorum could easily win Minnesota. Some claim Minnesota could go to Ron Paul. What would this mean for the Romney camp?

Got predictions?

- Who will win the Colorado caucus?
- Who will win the Minnesota caucus?
- Who will win the Missouri non-binding primary?
- Will any candidates drop out after tonight?
- Percentages?
- Surprises?

RESULTS (as of 6:47am EST)

Colorado (99% reporting):

Santorum - 40%
Romney - 35%
Gingrich - 13%
Paul - 12%

Minnesota (89% reporting):

Santorum - 45%
Paul - 27%
Romney - 17%
Gingrich - 11%

Missouri (99% reporting): 

Santorum - 55%
Romney - 25%
Paul - 12%

It looks like this is going to be a long fight. What do you think? What does this do for Romney?


  1. I'm no Mitt fan but I think he takes all three. Sure some reports say that Santorum will win MN, but when they poll only 635 people, it doesn't represent the state. I think more important than inevitability is the ability to beat Obama and I think GOP voters are asking themselves "serious, do we really think Santorum, Gingrich or Paul have a chance?"

    Romney will sweep all three. I WANT Santorum and Gingrich to drop out. All they are doing is causing damage for us in November, but they are too stubborn to do so.

    1. I have two questions.

      1. How is that if another 365 people were polled you would feel that the state were more represented?

      2. Why don't you want Ron Paul to drop out?

    2. I was just mocking how these "polls" work.

      I am a Paul supporter, but I want Mitt to win. He is the only candidate that can realistically beat Obama (yes, I am one of the few realistic supporters out there). I think if Paul stays in, that will keep his fanatics watching, and if they watch more Mitt, they will like him. Also, I think if Paul is the second to last man standing, he would endorse Mitt. Mitt needs it because from what I hear, most Paul supporters would go to Obama, and that just wouldn't be good for anybody.

    3. Fair enough, Anonymous, I don't put a lot of faith in polls either.

    4. Anonymous -

      I don't think Paul supporters will ever warm, en masse, to Romney. Many (perhaps most) Paul supporters like him for his position on the military. Romney couldn't be further from that position. Also, I don't think Paul will ever endorse Romney (has Paul ever endorsed anyone?). I think the only one he MIGHT endorse would be Gingrich and I only say that because the two seemed to be flirting with each other during one of the SC debates (I think it was SC). I think Paul would take the nomination if given to him but he wants to get people thinking, in my opinion. He wants to affect the parties by showing the delegates he's won and use that as a platform to demonstrate that there is a significant population that he represents.

    5. Hey, Whatsamattusa, I agree with you on the Paul supporters not warming up to Romney. However, I think Romney is who Paul will endorse. Romney hasn't attacked Paul and Paul hasn't attacked Romney. Kind of weird, isn't it. Why have they not attacked each other? They have attacked everyone else.

    6. Slim -

      I think that everyone sees Paul as a side show and thus don't see the benefit of attacking him. It may also be somewhat out of fear as these guys don't want to alienate his (Paul) voters. Also, I think it's harder to attack Paul because, like him or not, his platform is very consistent and it's a hard one to argue with since practically every point of view he has was developed through understanding of the constitution.

      I'd be surprised if he endorsed Romney but time will tell.

  2. Was searcing for Minnesota predictions and I found this so I will offer my predictions as a resident of Minnesota.

    With Obama waging war on catholics I think Rick Santorum will emerge here and it will be a big showing (something like 35%). Everyone else will be fighting to get around 20. Rick is who we need in the white house. He is someone that can realign our country with what we need: faith and family.

    1. MN 4 Rick -

      Can you explain 'waging wart on 'catholics' to me? I am hearing this more and more (in different forms... sometimes it's waging war on religion). I'm a guy who likes my politics 100% free of religion. I am not anti-religion (though I think organized religion causes more harm than does good - but that's another discussion) but I do think religion has no place in politics. I just don't understand all of this 'declaring war on __________' talk (and I'm not talking about Obama necessarily but Gingrich accusing Romney of the same). I just don't see it and don't understand the propaganda.

    2. He stands by his healthcare mandate that REQUIRES health care providers (many hospitals are affiliated with the church) to provide methods of birth control or contraception even if this violates their doctrine. Yes, religion should be kept out of politics but politics should be kept out of religion. No one in this country should be forced to do something like this. I'm catholic and anti-abortion, but I don't want everyone to be FORCED to be like me. Obama's law and the strict enforcement of it is a clear violation of the first amendment.

    3. MN 4 Rick -

      Thanks for your reply. Though I would disagree with your assessment of the law as a 'war on catholics', I do agree with your position. Church affiliated hospitals should not be forced to provide a service that goes against institutional beliefs. I agree with your first amendment violation.

    4. Thank you for your support of our constitution.

  3. Colorado seems to be a fairly liberal state so I believe Romney wins there.

    I think Santorum may win Minnesota and possibly Missouri.

    I don't think anyone drops out, regardless of how poor they do, this week. I think they all hang around until Super Tuesday. I wouldn't even consider dropping out right now if I were running.

    1. Slim -

      I haven't looked at any polls but I wouldn't be surprised to see Paul with a good showing in CO (not a win but a good showing - whatever that means). I hope Santorum wins both MN and MO just for the theater. I have this picture of Romney sitting in a corner sobbing wondering why he can't get people to like him - Obviously, I'm not a Romney guy.

      I also agree that nobody will drop out although I have to think, at some point, either Gingrich or Santorum has to drop out so that they can consolidate their voters. I almost think it has to be Newt because I don't think the evangelicals will be energized by Newt. However, I believe Newt is in it all the way and that both he and Santorum and the conservative base will suffer because of it.

    2. 32slim32 - I have like no time (I'm so swamped at work) but I wanted to share this with you. You and I were discussing how the media seems to "headline" garbage about the GOP. Admittedly, this isn't quantitative nor is it scientific but take a look:

      "Newt and Mitt: Two guys with Issues"

      C'mon now.

    3. LME, I will go look at that. Before I do, I'll give you my two cents. First Gloria Borger is (wow so many words I think I'll play it safe) not a very good journalist. Second, it's CNN.

      All that being said, "Newt and Mitt: Two guys with Issues", from a conservative standpoint, I would agree with that to a certain extent. However, I doubt Gloria means it that way. I'll check it out later and reply back this evening.

      Have great day LME (BMF).

    4. Change of plans, my mother stopped by the office unexpectedly with food (Home made turkey pot pie, mashed potatoes and fried okra [homegrown not that stuff from the store]), so I read Gloria's piece while eating.

      Yeah the main issues Mitt's too rich and Newt's too mean. Sheesh. Not even close to what I was thinking about.

      The funny thing is, she fails to see all of the issues 0bama has. His record being the most harmful.

    5. 32slim32 - YUM! Lol... someone is eatin' good tonight!

      Yah, for me, regardless of the actual context of the article is the headlining. It seems that headlines are the most powerful thing the media has. The content could say that Mitt and Newt are amazing, perfect and would do 100x better than Obama... but it seems that most people don't even read the content. When they are barraged with 100 headlines a day and only have the time to read 2, they will still take each headline's info and run with it. If someone sees "Newt and Mitt: Two guys with Issues," that might sway their minds. Add that up with all the other headlines and you have the swaying of opinions through headlines. For me, it's tough to prove or quantify, (some studies have actually been done on this) but I see it all the time and do my best to write about it when I can.

      Hope you have a great evening!