My critique of your analysis is that, unfortunately, not enough of the Gingrich/Santorum voting bloc would remain intact in that eventuality. After either Gingrich or Santorum dropped out, sufficient numbers of their bloc would migrate into Romney's camp to put him at or above the 50% level for the remainder of the primary contests, ultimately securing Mitt the nomination.
We really needed someone like Sarah Palin to step up in 2012. In retrospect, I believe she really missed an opportunity, although I also think she may very well have another opportunity in 2016, regardless of whether Romney or 0bama wins the general election.
And Perry probably should have stuck it out for a while longer. He might have been able to recover.
I really feel sorry for Newt, who I believe is the only announced candidate who could have decisively dominated 0bama both ideologically and intellectually in the general election debates.
I continue to have significant reservations about Santorum, and sincerely and honestly believe that he is "not ready for prime time", and while I would support his candidacy if he were to be nominated, I don't think he could win the general election if put to that ultimate test.
Romney is, of course, simply abysmal, and unlikely to energize conservatives enough to defeat the incumbent, even though 0bama is quite weak.
Palin was my first choice. Sorry she did not run, but I am sure they looked at it from their family’s perspective with their kids and special needs and decided that the experience would be detrimental to the family where their first commitment and responsibility is located.
Then I was for absolutely and viscuosly Cain and he was lynched by the media because he represented as clear and dangerous a threat to the lib plantation as Sarah. Funny how immediately after he dropped out all of the claims and all of the women coming forward stopped on a dime...even for the ones who had come forward. They had accomplished their mission.
Then I have came to Rick Santorum, for whom I have the same concerns as you, but who represents my values more closely than the others. I have to believe that the base would get behind him and I can only have trust and faith that God in Heaven’s would perhaps smile on us and aid us if we worked our hearts out for the proper principles and values...and particularly against the evil this current administration and their cohorts represent.
Having said that, I believe Newt would be very strong as a leader and could address the problems we face. I have one strong, nagging concern about Newt that I have voiced to anyone who will listen. It deals with his close association and support for Alvin Topfler in the 1980s and 1990s. Topfler is a new-age progressive who openly believes the Constitution is outdated and needs to be re-written or replaced. He writes about this, among his other progressive ideas in a couple of books called, The Third Wave,” and, “Politics of the Third Wave/” Gingrich wrote the intro for that last book, heartily recommending it. When he became speaker he made it required reading for new freshmen GOP congressmen.
To my knowledge he has never repudiated that association and it concerns me.
Anyhow, whatever else you may say about the man, Romney has run a disciplined and smart campaign. Yes, he has a lot of money, but he has spent it strategically. With the 40% of the overall vote he has amassed, he has garnered 54.5% of the delegates to date. He is using his resuorces to win where he needs to and march steadliy towards the magic delegate number steadily.
Of his 20 victories, 11 of them were by a margin that would have won even if the entirety of Newts and Ricks vote was combined, and seven of those by an absolute majority. And the states where he wins big like that, outside of Ohio and Michigan, have netted him the large majority of his delegates. So, even if Newt and Rick were combined with a 100% coming toigether (which as you poined out is not likely...probably more on the ordr of 80%) the race would still be very close at this point and the best we would probably get is a brokered convetnion anyway.
Romney’s past decisions are why I cannot support him 1st, 2nd, or 3rd. He is taking different positions now and indicating strongly that he will do those things. I believe he pragmatically ran for Governor in a liberal state and said things that would get him elected. He was never “for” abortion, but indicated he would not fight it as the law of the land. he then says he came around to understanding he had to fight it. For me, particularly as an active LDS which Rommney also is, in fact he was a leader for a number of years, this position is hard to understand and reconcile. But it is what he says.
As President, with the promises he has made, and as a pol who wants to keep his poisition as long as he can, I believe he will try and do the things he has indicated. Particularly if we have the Congress to drive him that way. I do not like having to be in that position...yet it may be the position we find ourselves in.
In the end, I will support the GOP nominee against Obama. If it is Romney, and if he picks a good VP candidate (and you can bet he will try and pick someone who will neergize the base), and most importantly if we deliver strong majorities in the House and Senate (which IMHO we must do anyway for any candidate if we hope to make any good progress in turning things around), then I suspect Romney coulkd have a successful and impactful Presidency.
Certainly far better than what we will see with another four years of the marxist, OBama.
AMERICA AT THE CROSSROADS OF HISTORY
http://www.jeffhead.com/crossroads.htm
IF I WERE PRESIDENT, HERE’S WHAT I WOULD DO
http://www.jeffhead.com/aspres.htm