Two comments: (1) You think this weird year can’t get any stranger and then it does and

(2) Romney’s intrade numbers have not dropped that much so overall he reamaints the most likely nominee although anything can happen

Romney is very likely to win the nomination because the anti-Romney people can’t get their act together and rally around one candidate.  Likewise none of the anti-Romney candidates is willing to step aside for the good of the team.  All of which adds up to Romney being the nominee of a party that mostly doesn’t care for him.

Disclaimer: I am a monarchist with libertarian leanings so I have no dog in this fight.  My guy has zero chance of winning the nomination.  But yeah, it’s far more entertaining than Saturday night pro-wrestling. 

It’s not just “the most conservative elements” who are uneasy with Romney leading the party. But it’s not only Romney; I think a lot of Republicans are wondering how we got this crop to pick from after four years of waiting for a chance to challenge Obama. I think some are starting to look forward to 2016.

I’m curious about the poor perceptions of Santorum.  Would someone clarify for me?  Thanks!

Re #4
Montanan,
The answer to your query will depend largely on who you are asking.  Speaking only for myself, I see him as a social/neo-con.  In short he is an imperialist who supports the military industrial complex and the more or less perpetual state of war we have been in for the last decade.  He seems raring to start another one with Iran which I suppose is only reasonable since we are winding down the one in Iraq.  These things must be continued you know. He also is a big government statist who thinks the government should tell people how to live their lives.  In short I see no significant philosophical difference between him and Obama save as to which aspects of our lives they would prefer the government dictated.

On one point, and only one point (though I concede an important one), do I see him as preferable to Obama.  He does not support the “right” of mothers to kill their children.

RE: “I’m curious about the poor perceptions of Santorum.”

Hi Montanan, I think you’ve got two issues.  First is his record on central planning, which is not good.  He’s pro-union [which intrinsically involves central planning and propped-up support from the Federal government], and adores the thought of government “helping” manufacturing and other special [at least he deems so] segments of society.  So he’s more than willing to maintain all the special breaks [and add more] and mandates and zones and tax giveaways of which Federal apparatchiks are so fond these days.  In other words, he’s not for the kind of limited government that constitutional conservatives are for.

Just a quote from a good article on this over at RedState:

The answer is a simple one: it’s almost entirely about spending. The current trajectory of American government spending is one in which spending by government in general, and by the federal government in particular, just keeps on growing as a share of the economy, further and further crowding out the space occupied by free private citizens and businesses in the private sector. Worse, much of this happens automatically, without the consent of the governed in any but the most perfunctory way: discretionary spending is designed to grow because budgets are set by using the prior year’s spending as a baseline, and entitlement and public employee benefit spending – which consume a far larger share of spending – grows by itself in the absence of any affirmative legislation to stop it. The federal government has not passed a budget in nearly 1,000 days (President Obama’s State of the Union speech will mark the 1000th), yet spending has continued to grow, and will continue to grow as far as the eye can see – a dramatic change in our country taking place on auto-pilot – unless dramatic action is taken in response to stop it. Jack’s magic beans have nothing on public spending.

And the growth of spending bleeds over into every other issue. Federal spending comes with strings attached, and those strings reduce the independence of the states and burrow the arms of the federal octopus ever further into the area of social policy. Institutions like churches, schools, and hospitals become hooked on federal money, and have to dance the federal tune. Spending gets earmarked and targeted to favored people, businesses and groups, making society less equal and government less ethical. Spending distorts energy markets, housing markets, and markets for higher education, creating bubbles and inefficiency. And that’s before we even get to the metastatic growth of federal regulation.

Would Santorum offer less of a “leviathan state” than Obama?  Sure!  But that’s an extraordinarily low bar to pass, since Hillary Clinton would probably be that too.

Some of the Republican Party—so blood-curdled by the extent to which Obama’s disdain for the Constitution is affecting the country—are for “anybody that can beat Obama.”  I’m not there, of course, but I can understand the panic and terror on the part of some in the country.  So they’ll take positively anyone who’s breathing—and they’ve chosen Romney for that effort.

I think a huge chunk of the political conservatives have a “baseline” bar below which they can’t go—and that chunk has Romney as below that baseline.  Hence we’re getting the vacillation between the two other candidates who are seriously flawed.  Some point out the central planning flaws of Santorum, others of Gingrich [along with his other flaws].

I think the other issue is more subtle.  Santorum’s intensely, seriously religious.  And that causes no end of fear and loathing from that part of the population that really really really doesn’t understand and doesn’t like intense, serious religion.

Obviously I don’t have a problem with that!  But a large percentage of the voters, I think, do.

Hope that’s helpful.

Thanks to both Sarah (#6) and Ad Orientem (#5) for attempting an answer to Montanan’s question in #4.  I largely agree with Sarah here.  But I’ll add a fairly obvious but painful factor to the mix. 

It is pointing out the obvious, the elephnat in the living room, so to speak, to observe that one reason why the Republican right hasn’t taken well or easily to either Mitt Romney or to Rick Santorum is that the former is Mormon, and the latter is Roman Catholic.  And the latter is more zealously committed to practicing his faith than the former.  But both are well outside the conservative Protestant base that anchors the right wing of the Republican party. 

Alas, the sad fact remains that anti-Catholic prejudice runs almost as deep, if not deeper, among many conservative Protestants than anti-Mormonism does, especially here in the Southeast.  Sad, but true.

In the interests of full disclosure, FWIW, I am technically a political independent who refuses to endorse uncritically any party slate.  But while my vote is less predictable when it comes to lesser offices, I haven’t voted for a Democrat for President since Jimmy Carter, and I now regret voting for him!  So I’ll undoubtedly vote for Romney in November, but I’ll be holding my nose as I do, and I certainly won’t give a penny to his campaign.

David Handy+

Senator Santorum ought not read too much into the Missouri results.  The vote was non-binding(the delegates will actually be selected in caucuses next month) and the turnout here was extremely light.  I voted about 10:00 in the morning and I was only the fourteenth person to vote at my polling place.

RE: “Alas, the sad fact remains that anti-Catholic prejudice runs almost as deep, if not deeper, among many conservative Protestants than anti-Mormonism does, especially here in the Southeast.”

Eh?

Than why’d we vote for Gingrich?

I disagree that either Mormon or RC prejudice is guiding most conservatives’ votes.  South Carolina is much like north Florida—die-hard conservative, which explains why so many held their noses and voted for the least-ghastly-liberal.  It had little to do with Mormonism.  Heck, I’d vote for a Buddhist or Scientologist if I could confidently believe that either was committed to individual liberty, private property rights, free enterprise, limited government, and the Constitution.

I’ll second Sarah’s response to NRA. I don’t think there is an issue among Republican voters with Rick Santorum’s religious belief. If anything it may actually be what is driving his latest surge. I hear some questions about his experience, though, as well as where he lies on the different scales of conservatism.
Regarding Romney, I and those with whom I’ve talked about this election season can’t make out who is the real Romney. That’s troubling to us, and I think it may be a shared issue among enrolled Republican voters.
Newt Gingrich carries his history of leadership style when he was in Congress. A bit of a loose cannon sliding across the deck at times.
Ron Paul stands tall on his principles. But while admirable, I think some feel that they are good to talk about, just not to apply to themselves, especially. His age may also play a part.
Is that all who are left?