CHARLESTON, S.C. - Despite the cloud cast over Rick Santorum's campaign by his third-place showing in the South Carolina primary on Saturday, his aides said he was pressing on to Florida on Sunday while also pursuing a broad national campaign strategy.
[h=3]Election 2012 iPhone App[/h] A one-stop destination for the latest political news - from The Times and other top sources. Plus opinion, polls, campaign data and video.
And his aides promised to wage a long campaign, battling state by state for delegates.
Mr. Santorum plans to visit a conservative church in Pompano Beach, Fla., on Sunday and join a debate Monday night in Tampa, eight days before the Jan. 31 primary there. But he also intends to campaign in states that vote the following week, including Nevada, Minnesota and Colorado, as well as Arizona and Michigan, which vote at the end of February.
"Our campaign is small, and no state is a make-or-break state for us," said John Brabender, Mr. Santorum's top media strategist.
"We are very frugal," he added. "We can go on endlessly."
The possibility of picking up a smattering of delegates in these states makes them more enticing than Florida, a big, expensive state that awards its delegates on a winner-take-all basis. That means that even a second-place showing earns no delegates, making it a risky place to play.
"We're not parking ourselves in Florida," Mr. Brabender said. "There are other good states with proportional voting that will give us delegates."
Looking on the bright side, campaign aides noted that Mr. Santorum had outlasted five other candidates who had dropped out. And at his campaign party at the Citadel here in Charleston on Saturday night, Mr. Santorum, sounding more victorious than conciliatory, declared, "Three states, three winners, what a country!" He hoped to remind voters that he had won the Iowa caucuses, although the news came in a belated tally that denied him bragging rights until a couple of days ago. Until then, Mitt Romney had been the perceived winner, by eight votes.
Mr. Santorum said Saturday that he was disappointed that his victory in Iowa was tallied so late. "The whole narrative of Romney would have been completely changed and the whole narrative of us would have been completely different," he told CNN.
The Santorum campaign is counting on Mr. Gingrich's first-place finish in South Carolina to reconfigure the race substantially. For one thing, aides said, the victory hurts Mr. Romney more than it hurts Mr. Santorum, because Mr. Romney was supposedly the inevitable nominee.
This gave Mr. Santorum a certain glow on Saturday night, as he told CNN that short of winning in South Carolina, he "couldn't be happier" with the results.
His aides said that Mr. Gingrich's sudden resurrection meant that the news media would scrutinize him more thoroughly. They also expect the Romney campaign to unload negative ads on Mr. Gingrich, much the way it did in Iowa, suppressing Mr. Gingrich's surging candidacy.
"A lot of the shine is going to come off Newt," said Hogan Gidley, Mr. Santorum's spokesman.
Mr. Santorum indicated that he also would continue his criticism of Mr. Gingrich, the former House speaker. Mr. Santorum had called him unstable, undisciplined and too prone to surprises.
"I made the case - those who have worked with Congressman Gingrich know what's in store if he's the nominee," Mr. Santorum told CNN.
Perhaps one of the biggest disappointments for the Santorum campaign was the absence of support from evangelical networks, even after religious leaders, meeting a week ago in Texas, voted to coalesce around his candidacy. Exit polls showed that a majority of those voters in South Carolina chose Mr. Gingrich.
Mr. Santorum's aides said that such support takes awhile to build and could not have been organized in a week. And at least one of those religious leaders, Gary Bauer, president of American Values, said he was sticking with Mr. Santorum, "without hesitation."
"At the end of the day, voters make their own judgment," he said. "In Iowa, they went with Rick. In South Carolina, they went with Gingrich. We'll see where they go in other states."
[h=6]A version of this article appeared in print on January 22, 2012, on page A17 of the New York edition with the headline: Santorum, Optimistic, Plans Effort Nationwide.[/h]
[h=1]Mitt Romney wins Maine caucuses with narrow victory over Ron Paul[/h] Doubts about his ability to excite the conservative base remain amid concerns over his chances of beating Obama in November
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in Maine on Saturday. Photograph: Brian Snyder/Reuters
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has got his campaign back on track by winning the Maine caucuses, holding off a strong challenge from the outsider, Texas Congressman Ron Paul.
Although Romney will be relieved to have chalked up a victory after losing three contests in mid-week, he saw a huge 31% majority from the 2008 Republican nominating race shrink to just 3%. The narrowness of the win keeps alive doubts about his ability to excite the conservative base, and concerns that a lack of enthusiasm could prove a problem against Barack Obama in November.
Romney now has four wins (New Hampshire, Florida, Nevada and Maine) to Rick Santorum's three (Minnesota, Iowa and Colorado), plus Santorum's victory in a popularity contest in Missouri where nothing was at stake. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has just one, South Carolina.
Maine was a big disappointment for Paul who invested a lot of time and had hoped finally to make a breakthrough and win a state.
With 95% of the votes counted some caucuses had to be delayed by snow Romney took 39%, 2,190 votes, to Paul's 36% with 1,996 votes. Santorum took 18% and Gingrich 6%. Neither Santorum or Gingrich campaigned in Maine.
Maine was important for Romney because it allows him to finish on a high ahead of an almost three-week break. The next round of contests is not until 28 February with Michigan and Arizona.
Romney, in a statement issued after the Maine result, portrayed himself as a Washington outsider. "I am the only candidate in the race who has never served a day in our broken federal government. The voters of Maine have sent a clear message that it is past time to send an outsider to the White House, a conservative with a lifetime of experience in the private sector, who can uproot Washington's culture of taxing and spending and borrowing and endless bureaucracy."
The win in Maine comes on top of a win for Romney in a straw poll at the conservative mega-conference in Washington, the Conservative Political Action Conference. He took 38% of the 3,804 votes, Santorum 31%, Gingrich 15% and Paul 12%.
That is a good result for Romney, given that the attendees tend to be die-hard conservatives, a group that often view him as too moderate.
Paul put his best face on the Maine result, declaring it a tie. He later conceded, in an interview with CNN, that Mitt Romney had re-established himself as frontrunner. He suggested he expected him to be the eventual winner, though noting he had failed to enthuse conservatives. "He is out in front He picked up a little steam today," Paul said.
Paul's long-term strategy is to build up a bloc of delegates to take to the party convention in Tampa, Florida, and expressed satisfaction with the high portion of delegates he expected to take from Maine. The vote on Saturday is non-binding and Paul predicted that when the delegates to the convention are eventually chosen he would have a majority.
But even that would be a small victory in the greater scheme of things. Maine was Paul's best hope to win a state and he failed. That will not stop him continuing to gather delegates to take to the convention and seek concessions from the eventual winner.
Romney is favourite to win Arizona, partly because of its big Mormon population and because of the support of its senator John McCain. He should be favourite to win Michigan, which is his home state, but Santorum appears intent on achieving an upset.
Romney won Maine by a large margin in 2008, with 52% of the vote, with Paul coming third on 18% behind the eventual Republican nominee John McCain on 21%. There are 24 delegates at stake in Maine.
One the last day of the CPAC meeting, Palin avoided endorsing any of the Republican candidates but he hinted at opposition to Romney. She said the nominee "must be someone who can instinctively turn right to constitutional conservative principles."
A national opinion poll released late on Saturday from Public Policy Polling, puts Santorum well in front on 38%, with Romney on 23%, Gingrich 17% and Paul 13%.
[h=1]Rick Santorum sets sights on Michigan contest with Mitt Romney[/h] Republican nomination candidate expects 'two-man race' with frontrunner following string of surprise wins
Rick Santorum, centre, said he could do 'exceptionally well' against Mitt Romney in Michigan. Photograph: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
Rick Santorum has shrugged off Mitt Romney's victories in the Maine caucuses and the straw poll of conservative activists that preceded it, describing the Republican nomination race's frontrunner as "desperate."
Santorum said he could do "exceptionally well" in Michigan, where Romney grew up and where his father served as governor and expects to be in a "two-man race" with him.
The next contests take place in Michigan and Arizona on 28 February.
"We're going to spend a lot of time in Michigan and Arizona, and those are up next. And that's where we've really been focusing on," Santorum told ABC's This Week on Sunday.
Buoyed by his surprise wins in Minnesota, Colorado and Missouri last week, Santorum hit back at Romney's statements that both he and Newt Gingrich were "Republicans who acted like Democrats."
"For him to suggest that I'm not the conservative in this race you know you reach a point where desperate people do desperate things," Santorum said.
"That's pretty funny for Mitt Romney saying I'm acting like a Democrat."
Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator, said he is the latest candidate to challenge Romney as frontrunner and that his rival is struggling with how to go after a "solid conservative" who has a track record of winning support from independents and Democrats.
"Governor Romney, when he ran his race, [he] ran as a moderate in Massachusetts. And that's fine. It's a tough state. And, you know, the people have to do what they have to do to win. Well, I stood up and was for what I was for, and I won four races, I lost one. That's pretty good."
In Colorado last week, Romney told his supporters: "Senator Santorum and Speaker Gingrich, they are the very Republicans who acted like Democrats, and when Republicans act like Democrats they lose. In Newt Gingrich's case, he had to resign. In Rick Santorum's case, he lost by the biggest margin of any Senate incumbent since 1980."
Santorum dismissed his own third-place finish on Saturday in the caucuses in Maine, where he didn't actively compete, as well as coming second in the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) straw poll.
"That was not a place we were going to compete," Santorum said.
In an interview on CNN's State of the Union programme he hinted but stopped short of accusing Romney of rigging the poll. He suggested it was "standard procedure" at straw polls for candidates to buy tickets for their supporters, who are bused in to vote.
"We didn't do that. We don't do that," Santorum said. "I don't try to rig straw polls."
But when asked directly by CNN's Candy Crowley if Romney rigged the CPAC poll, Santorum said: "You have to talk to the Romney campaign about how many tickets they bought, we've heard all sorts of things."
Santorum also said he plans to release his tax returns within the next couple of days, possibly as early as Monday.
With two weeks to go before the next primaries, the GOP presidential hopefuls will focus on organisations and their donors.
Santorum's campaign reported a huge surge in donations, gathering $3m (£1.9m) in the three days immediately followinglast week's wins. He reported $279,000 in the bank at the end of December, compared with Romney's $19.9m. Gingrich had $2.1m, but is still carrying substantial debt, while Paul reported $1.9m.
Romney won 11 delegates and Paul 10, according to an analysis of the Maine results by Associated Press. Santorum and Gingrich were shut out. That brings the delegate count to 123 for Romney, 72 for Santorum, 32 for Gingrich and 19 for Paul, with 1,144 delegates needed for the nomination.
The former Massachusetts governor, who already has a massive financial advantage over his rivals, left Maine before the low-turnout caucus results were announced to attend a west coast fundraiser on Saturday night.
Issuing a statement to mark his victory, Romney said: "I'm heartened to have the support of so many good people in this great state. The voters of Maine have sent a clear message that it is past time to send an outsider to the White House."
Romney captured 39% of the vote, narrowly defeating Paul's 36%. Santorum and Gingrich, neither of whom actively campaigned in Maine, won 18% and 6% respectively.
His victory he did better in Maine in 2008 when he won 51% of the vote- did little to see off questions among Republicans about his endurance.
Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska, said Romney has work to do to convince GOP voters he's moved beyond his "pretty moderate past even in some cases a liberal past."
"I am not convinced, and I do not think the majority of GOP and independent voters are convinced," Palin said on Fox News on Sunday.
[h=1]Newt Gingrich: can we really imagine him as president?[/h] When you look at his record in politics and personal conduct, the idea that this man might be the Republican nominee is obscene
By the nose: Newt Gingrich, playful with a supporter in South Carolina. Photograph: Nathan Gray/AP
America is in trouble if any of the Republican candidates for president actually defeat Barack Obama in November. Say what you will about Obama, as there is plenty to criticize. We do need a major employment bill to put more people to work. We do need to deal with the hardcore woes of America's middle class and poor. We do need an end to politicians' cozy relationship with corporations and banks, a bond that has led to ruthless capitalism and senseless job elimination. We do need a tax system that no longer benefits the super-wealthy at the expense of the 99%. We do need to change how the Federal Reserve operates, so that it no longer gives big banks power over our government. These are some of the core issues of this 2012 election. So, as I watched the Republican Florida debate last night, I could not help but wonder what has happened to the Republican party of Mitt Romney's father, of Jacob Javits, of the Rockefellers. Here we are, three decades after Ronald Reagan's ascendancy, and there is still the racially-charged language of "the welfare queen", except today it's stated directly by Newt Gingrich that blacks want food stamps rather than a job. There is eternal talk of "taking back America", but it is not obvious from what or from whom we are taking back America. Given the racial and class makeup of the men on stage last night, it's a safe bet the America they envision, where illegal immigrants, as Mitt Romney declared, would engage in "self-deportation", is a country that will perpetually be a society of haves and have-nots, of the blame game, rather than practical solutions to move America forward. But that is not Newt Gingrich's concern. The mere fact that he is a serious candidate is an embarrassment to Republicans. For here is a man who is a hypocrite, an influence-peddler, a racial mudslinger, hell-bent on being president of the United States. As I listen to Gingrich, from one interview or campaign stop to the next, discuss family values, I note we have a sitting president who epitomizes a stable home life with his wife and two daughters, not a controversy in sight. But perhaps, former House speaker Gingrich meant what he said at the debate: "Be prepared to be controversial when necessary." The more controversy the better, it seems. Gingrich, steeped in arrogance, blasts the media and anyone who dares to ask him about his personal life. Do we really want a man in the White House who would cheat on his first wife, then divorce her while she is in treatment for cancer? Do we really want someone who would then divorce his second wife (and mistress during his first marriage), who helped build his political portfolio, because she refused to participate in the open relationship, according to her, he was seeking that would include wife No 2 and mistress No 2 (now wife No 3)? Do we really want this man who is not remotely apologetic about any of this, and has taken to dissing his second wife for speaking publicly? Furthermore, do we really want a man in the White House who, along with his homeboy Tom Delay, was the key shaper of the current pay-to-play system in Congress, where seniority was thrown into the Potomac River and politicians who brought in the most cash got the plum committee assignments? No, we do not. Nor do we want a man who, after leaving Congress in disgrace over ethics violations (with a $300,000 fine for his misdeeds), has gone on to make millions of dollars either as a "consultant" or "historian" to big oil, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (we know their role in the devastating home foreclosure crisis), healthcare companies … anyone with a checkbook. Gingrich is bashing Mitt Romney as a "vulture capitalist", yet it is self-evident that Newt Gingrich, the de facto lobbyist, has been hustling American democracy and the American people for many years. The sad irony is that Gingrich is so gifted an orator, has so skilfully mastered that conservative Republican tactic of buzzwords before substance, that there are Americans, poor and middle-class, white Americans mainly, in the South, in the Midwest, in other economically strapped regions, who will vote for him. They apparently do not realize they are essentially voting for one of the elite they distrust, and voting against their own financial interests.
What becomes of Newt Gingrich's presidential candidacy is anyone's guess. Win or lose, he's a cancer in the American social fabric, a polarizing persona of what is wrong with our democratic system. He has a right to run – and we have the right to say, no, you are not good for our nation, or our world.
[h=1]Newt Gingrich: can we really imagine him as president?[/h] When you look at his record in politics and personal conduct, the idea that this man might be the Republican nominee is obscene
By the nose: Newt Gingrich, playful with a supporter in South Carolina. Photograph: Nathan Gray/AP
America is in trouble if any of the Republican candidates for president actually defeat Barack Obama in November. Say what you will about Obama, as there is plenty to criticize. We do need a major employment bill to put more people to work. We do need to deal with the hardcore woes of America's middle class and poor. We do need an end to politicians' cozy relationship with corporations and banks, a bond that has led to ruthless capitalism and senseless job elimination. We do need a tax system that no longer benefits the super-wealthy at the expense of the 99%. We do need to change how the Federal Reserve operates, so that it no longer gives big banks power over our government. These are some of the core issues of this 2012 election. So, as I watched the Republican Florida debate last night, I could not help but wonder what has happened to the Republican party of Mitt Romney's father, of Jacob Javits, of the Rockefellers. Here we are, three decades after Ronald Reagan's ascendancy, and there is still the racially-charged language of "the welfare queen", except today it's stated directly by Newt Gingrich that blacks want food stamps rather than a job. There is eternal talk of "taking back America", but it is not obvious from what or from whom we are taking back America. Given the racial and class makeup of the men on stage last night, it's a safe bet the America they envision, where illegal immigrants, as Mitt Romney declared, would engage in "self-deportation", is a country that will perpetually be a society of haves and have-nots, of the blame game, rather than practical solutions to move America forward. But that is not Newt Gingrich's concern. The mere fact that he is a serious candidate is an embarrassment to Republicans. For here is a man who is a hypocrite, an influence-peddler, a racial mudslinger, hell-bent on being president of the United States. As I listen to Gingrich, from one interview or campaign stop to the next, discuss family values, I note we have a sitting president who epitomizes a stable home life with his wife and two daughters, not a controversy in sight. But perhaps, former House speaker Gingrich meant what he said at the debate: "Be prepared to be controversial when necessary." The more controversy the better, it seems. Gingrich, steeped in arrogance, blasts the media and anyone who dares to ask him about his personal life. Do we really want a man in the White House who would cheat on his first wife, then divorce her while she is in treatment for cancer? Do we really want someone who would then divorce his second wife (and mistress during his first marriage), who helped build his political portfolio, because she refused to participate in the open relationship, according to her, he was seeking that would include wife No 2 and mistress No 2 (now wife No 3)? Do we really want this man who is not remotely apologetic about any of this, and has taken to dissing his second wife for speaking publicly? Furthermore, do we really want a man in the White House who, along with his homeboy Tom Delay, was the key shaper of the current pay-to-play system in Congress, where seniority was thrown into the Potomac River and politicians who brought in the most cash got the plum committee assignments? No, we do not. Nor do we want a man who, after leaving Congress in disgrace over ethics violations (with a $300,000 fine for his misdeeds), has gone on to make millions of dollars either as a "consultant" or "historian" to big oil, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (we know their role in the devastating home foreclosure crisis), healthcare companies anyone with a checkbook. Gingrich is bashing Mitt Romney as a "vulture capitalist", yet it is self-evident that Newt Gingrich, the de facto lobbyist, has been hustling American democracy and the American people for many years. The sad irony is that Gingrich is so gifted an orator, has so skilfully mastered that conservative Republican tactic of buzzwords before substance, that there are Americans, poor and middle-class, white Americans mainly, in the South, in the Midwest, in other economically strapped regions, who will vote for him. They apparently do not realize they are essentially voting for one of the elite they distrust, and voting against their own financial interests.
What becomes of Newt Gingrich's presidential candidacy is anyone's guess. Win or lose, he's a cancer in the American social fabric, a polarizing persona of what is wrong with our democratic system. He has a right to run and we have the right to say, no, you are not good for our nation, or our world.
[h=1]Santorum gains edge with conservative voters ahead of Michigan primary[/h] While Mitt Romney remains the favourite to win his party's nomination, Santorum is breaking away with conservative votes
Rick Santorum the last man standing? Photograph: Jonathan Ernst/REUTERS
Rick Santorum looks to be the last man standing for many conservative voters in the Republican presidential race after polls showed him pulling ahead of Mitt Romney nationally and in the important Michigan primary.
Although Romney remains the favourite to win his party's nomination, the surveys will be a further blow to his chances of being elected president, as they show his own party is more divided than ever over his conservative credentials. The results suggest that many Republicans will stay away from the polls if Romney is their party's candidate and that the vicious primary battles have resulted in a surge in support for Barack Obama among independent voters.
A Pew Research Center poll taken this week puts support for Santorum among Republican voters at 30%, two percentage points ahead of Romney. A month ago, Romney held a 31% to 14% lead over Santorum.
A Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey released on Monday showed that Santorum has taken a significant lead in the Michigan primary in a fortnight. Santorum is at 39%, 15 percentage points ahead of Romney. The numbers are a stinging blow to Romney because he was born in Michigan and his father was governor of the state.
The big loser is Newt Gingrich who, after his crushing victory over Romney in South Carolina last month, was calling on Santorum to quit the race to make way for him as the conservative candidate. But the former speaker of the House of Representatives appears to have been undone by the relentless attack adverts in support of Romney which focused on Gingrich's ethical violations in Congress, his work as a lobbyist and his serial adultery. Gingrich was also not helped by some of his own proposals, including establishing a colony on the moon.
PPP said the results show that Santorum's rise "is attributable to two major factors: his own personal popularity (a stellar 67/23 favourability) and (Republican) voters increasingly souring on Gingrich".
"Santorum's becoming something closer and closer to a consensus conservative candidate as Gingrich bleeds support," it said.
Santorum, who has already won more contests and twice as many delegates as Gingrich, is focused on winning Michigan and then Ohio, another rust belt state where his campaign team believes his working class background will play well with blue collar conservatives. The Santorum campaign team's hope is that victories in the two states would force Gingrich out of the race.
On Monday, the National Review, a prominent conservative publication, on Monday called on Gingrich to quit now.
"It would be a grave mistake for the party to make someone with such poor judgment and persistent unpopularity its presidential nominee. It is not clear whether Gingrich remains in the race because he still believes he could become president next year or because he wants to avenge his wounded pride: an ambiguity that suggests the problem with him as a leader. When he led Santorum in the polls, he urged the Pennsylvanian to leave the race. On his own arguments the proper course for him now is to endorse Santorum and exit," the magazine said in a leader.
The polls reflect the evident division in the Republican party through the early primaries and caucuses as conservatives and evangelical Christians in particular search around for an alternative to Romney who is frequently regarded with suspicion over his shifting positions on abortion, government oversight of healthcare and spending. That was most starkly shown in Gingrich's win in South Carolina and Santorum's upset victories in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado a state Romney won in 2008.
According to the Pew poll, Santorum commands almost twice as much support as Romney among conservatives, Tea Party supporters and white evangelicals. He also now soundly beats Gingrich with all three groups.
Romney leads among those who describe themselves as moderate or liberal Republicans but it is not enough to overcome the deficit on the right of the party.
The Pew poll suggests the vicious Republican campaign, which has in part been shaped by millions of dollars poured in by Super Pacs to attack advertising, has taken its toll on Romney showing growing doubts about his commitment to conservatism.
Three months ago more than half of Republican voters saw Romney as a strong conservative. That figure has dropped to 42% while those with doubts about his conservatism has risen to 50%.
Sarah Palin on Monday damningly described Romney's conservatism as "evolving".
Romney's problem if he wins the Republican nomination will be to ensure that those party supporters who have doubts about him turn out in the presidential election. Anecdotal evidence from the campaign trail suggests that many so deeply dislike Obama that they will vote for whoever is the Republican candidate. But the Pew poll says that about one-third of Republican supporters believe the split in the party will keep some Republicans from supporting Romney.
The principal beneficiary appears to be the president.
Nationally, support for Obama has risen to 52% while backing for Romney has slipped back to 44%. Among independent voters, who will do a lot to decide the election, support for Obama has surged. The president has come from behind just a month ago, when he trailed Romney 40% to 50%, to lead by nine percentage points.
[h=1]The paradox of Rick Santorum's conservative beliefs[/h] Santorum's supporters denounce the government's religious interference, but it's their mantra that feels like oppression
Rick Santorum campaigning in Michigan last week. Photograph: James Fassinger
I can't imagine that anyone on the Obama re-election team ever thought they'd be so lucky as to run against Rick Santorum; even now, one senses a kind of incredulous bemusement among when they are asked to respond to the former senator's more strident remarks.
They can rise above Santorum's social conservative mud-slinging without raising a sweat. Last Sunday, Robert Gibbs, an Obama campaign adviser, used Santorum's accusation that the president had a "phony theology" to plea for civility. We have to, Gibbs said, "get rid of this mindset in our politics that, if we disagree, we have to question character and faith," an assertion that appeals to a conviction that most Americans cling to more strongly than any religious affiliation: the right to be left alone. As I've written before, I think it's Santorum's comfort with judging (and interfering with) the private lives of others that raises the hackles of voters who don't already agree with him. Social conservatives, Santorum chief among them, have tried to paint the administration's support for mandatory coverage of birth control by insurance companies as an imposition of beliefs on its own. When Santorum claims that the policy means that Obama "has reached a new low in this country's history of oppressing religious freedom that we have never seen before," he's relying on American's long-held distrust of government to blind us to real-life workings of the policy he describes. In practice, it's preventing people from using their insurance to cover birth control costs that feels like government interference, on the way to oppression.
The ability to control when and if we have children isn't a luxury anymore, it's a right as fundamental to our understanding of personal freedom that I'm not even sure most voters give it a second thought. Involving insurance companies, and employers, complicates the issue somewhat for some people but not so much that it makes the president's policy unpopular.
Believing that employer-subsidized birth control is "a new low in oppressing religious freedom" requires perverting the meaning of "religious freedom" such that it actually means "only my religion," a singleness of vision that Americans just don't share.
As a country, we are more tolerant of religious diversity than most clerics of any stripe would prefer: 70% of Americans who claim affiliation with a particular denomination agree that "many religions can lead to eternal life," an admirable expression of broadmindedness but kind of a buzzkill as far as unique selling propositions go.
Santorum is on record supporting his particular flavor of worship as a killer app; mainline Protestants, he's said, are "gone from the world of Christianity as I see it" the closest we'll get to an admission of his impossibly narrow vision. Almost all of Santorum's opinions on social issues require a kind of intellectual blinders to make sense, some of them might even demand a different set for each eye. He wants to make divorce more difficult but believes marriage is making babies a set of positions that logically leads to the kind of unhappy families that make people avoid marriage. He is adamant in opposition to abortion but balks at providing women with prenatal care.
These positions are as almost as unpopular as they are nonsensical: Americans' support for same-sex marriage grows year by year, and refusing to pay for indigent women's pre-natal care can lead some pregnant women to abortion.
Santorum is ahead in national polls on the strength of his meaningless wins in Colorado, Missouri and Minnesota and, more to the point, not being Mitt Romney. This election cycle has shown again and again that Republican candidates rise in the polls only to sink again once the public gets to know them. Santorum has undeniable appeal: he is passionate, earnest, genuine and eloquent when it comes to his beliefs. Unfortunately, the more people find out about those beliefs, the more they will see not just how different they are, but how the beliefs themselves encourage the suppression of difference, whatever appeals to freedom he might make.
Obama's supporters can only hope that Santorum embraces freedom of expression, when it comes to religion or anything else, as broadly as possible, and keeps talking.
[h=1]We need to know who funds these thinktank lobbyists[/h] The battle for democracy is becoming a fight against backroom billionaires seeking to shape politics to suit their own interests
Consultant Frank Luntz's technique was pioneered by tobacco firms: teach the controversy' in schools. Photograph: Jeffrey Blackler / Alamy/Alamy
Shocking, fascinating, entirely unsurprising: the leaked documents, if authentic, confirm what we suspected but could not prove. The Heartland Institute, which has helped lead the war against climate science in the United States, is funded among others by tobacco firms, fossil fuel companies and one of the billionaire Koch brothers.
It appears to have followed the script written by a consultant to the Republican party, Frank Luntz, in 2002. "Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."
Luntz's technique was pioneered by the tobacco companies and the creationists: teach the controversy. In other words, insist that the question of whether cigarettes cause lung cancer, natural selection drives evolution, or burning fossil fuels causes climate change, is still wide open, and that both sides of the "controversy" should be taught in schools and thrashed out in the media.
The leaked documents appear to show that, courtesy of its multimillionaire donors, the institute has commissioned a global warming curriculum for schools which teaches that "whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy" and "whether CO[SUB]2[/SUB] is a pollutant is controversial".
The institute has claimed it is "a genuinely independent source of research and commentary" and that "we do not take positions in order to appease or avoid losing support from individual donors". But the documents, if authentic, reveal that its attacks on climate science have been largely funded by a single anonymous donor and that "we are extinguishing primarily global warming projects in pace with declines in his giving".
The climate change deniers it funds have made similar claims to independence. For example, last year Fred Singer told a French website: "Of course I am not funded by the fossil fuel lobbies. It's a completely absurd invention." The documents suggest that the institute, funded among others by the coal company Murray Energy, the the oil company Marathon and the former Exxon lobbyist Randy Randol has been paying him $5,000 a month.
Robert Carter has claimed he "receives no research funding from special interest organisations". But the documents suggest that Heartland pays him $1,667 a month. Among the speakers at its conferences were two writers for the Telegraph (Christopher Booker and James Delingpole). The Telegraph group should now reveal whether and how much they were paid by the Heartland Institute.
It seems to be as clear an illustration as we have yet seen of the gulf between what such groups call themselves and what they really are. Invariably, organisations arguing for regulations to be removed, top taxes to be reduced and other such billionaire-friendly policies, call themselves free-market or conservative thinktanks. But according to David Frum, formerly a fellow at one such group the American Enterprise Institute they "increasingly function as public relations agencies". The message they send to their employees, he says, is "we don't pay you to think, we pay you to repeat".
The profits of polluting or reckless companies and banks and the vast personal fortunes of their beneficiaries are largely dependent on the regulations set by governments. This is why the "thinktanks" campaign for small government. If regulations robustly defend the public interest, the profits decline. If they are weak, the profits rise. Billionaires and big business buy influence to insulate themselves from democratic control. It seems to me that the so-called thinktanks are an important component of this public relations work.
Their funding, in most cases, is opaque. When I challenged some of the most prominent of such groups in the UK, only one would reveal its donors' identity. The others refused. Disgracefully, their lack of accountability does not prevent some of them from registering as charities and claiming tax exemption.
The Charity Commission in England and Wales negligent, asleep at the wheel is becoming a threat to democracy. These organisations are not trying to restore historic buildings or rescue distressed donkeys. They are seeking to effect political change in highly contentious areas. The minimum requirement for all such groups whether they are on the left or on the right is that they should disclose their major sources of income so that we know on whose behalf they speak. The commission is providing cover for multimillionaires and corporations who are funding undisclosed campaigns to enhance their own wealth under the guise of charity, and obliging the rest of us to pay for it through tax exemptions. If that's charity, a police siren is music.
The use of so-called thinktanks on both sides of the Atlantic seems to me to mirror the use of super-political action committees (superPACs) in the US. Since the supreme court removed the limits on how much one person could give to a political campaign, the billionaires have achieved almost total control over politics. An article last week on TomDispatch revealed that in 2011, just 196 donors provided nearly 80% of the money raised by superPACs.
The leading Republican candidates have all but abandoned the idea of mobilising popular support. Instead they use the huge funds they raise from billionaires to attack the credibility of their opponents through television ads. Yet more money is channelled through 501c4 groups tax-exempt bodies supposedly promoting social welfare which (unlike the superPACs) don't have to reveal the identity of their donors. TomDispatch notes that "serving as a secret slush fund for billionaires evidently now qualifies as social welfare."
The money wins. This is why Republicans swept up so many seats in the mid-term elections, and why the surviving Democrats were scarcely distinguishable from their rivals. It is why Obama, for all his promise, appears incapable of governing in the public interest. What can he tell the banks: "Do what I say or I won't take your money any more"? How can he tax the billionaires when they have their hands around his throat? Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
This is plutocracy, pure and simple. The battle for democracy is now a straight fight against the billionaires and corporations reshaping politics to suit their interests. The first task of all democrats must be to demand that any group, of any complexion, seeking to effect political change should reveal its funders. Twitter: @georgemonbiot
[h=1]Obama sings Sweet Home Chicago at White House blues reception video[/h] Barack Obama showed his vocal chops when he sang Sweet Home Chicago at a White House tribute concert as part of Black History Month. The US president feigned reluctance before accepting the microphone from Mick Jagger and performing a duet of sorts with blues legend BB King. Obama remarked that even though a president's life was sometimes restricted by security concerns, having the stars come over to play a gig was an obvious benefit
[h=1]Mitt Romney plans 20% tax cut in effort to revive faltering campaign[/h] Former Massachusetts governor hopes proposals will give him edge over Santorum before contests in Michigan and Arizona
Mitt Romney unveiled his tax plans in Chandler, Arizona, just hours before a TV debate in Phoenix. Photograph: Gerald Herbert/AP
Mitt Romney has unveiled a plan to cut taxes by 20%, in an effort to shore up his bid for the Republican presidential nomination ahead of primaries in Michigan and Arizona next week and the Super Tuesday contests a week later.
Romney, under pressure from rival Rick Santorum, who is neck-and-neck in the polls with him Michigan and Arizona, unveiled the latest – and most generous – version of his tax plans just hours ahead of a televised debate between the four remaining candidates.
"I'm going to lower rates across the board for all Americans by 20%," he told a crowd of about 500 gathered in a gymnasium at a Christian academy in Chandler, near Phoenix, Arizona.
Romney's plan has the appeal of simplicity and it could help him win over not only conservative voters but independents at a general election. The prospect of tax cuts, particularly the idea of 20%, is a tantalising prospect as voters do their sums, regardless of how much progressives argue that tax cuts mean poorer services.
The plan is aimed at giving Romney a much-needed edge in a closely-fought campaign. Michigan is his home state and defeat at the hands of Santorum would raise serious doubts about his chances of becoming the Republican presidential nominee.
Voters in Michigan, Arizona and Super Tuesday states such as Ohio rate the economy and unemployment are the most important issues.
Romney, speaking in Chandler, argued tax cuts would help the economy grow. He suggested 20% cuts in each of six tax brackets: 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35%. These would become 8%, 12%, 20%, 22.4%, 26.4% and 28%.
The former Massachusetts governor said his plan would be revenue neutral, by limiting deductions, particularly for the wealthiest. Among deductions he planned to limit are charitable contributions and relief on mortgage interest payments.
"With regards to our tax policy, our growth with regards to our tax policy, there are a couple things I'd like to announce to you today. And in order to limit any impact on the deficit – because I don't want to add to the deficit – and also in order to make sure that we continue to have progressivity as we've had in the past in our code, I'm going to limit the deductions and exemptions, particularly for high-income folks."
Romney first set out tax plans in September but these dealt mainly with corporate rather than individual taxes.
Conscious of his potrayal by rivals as super-rich, out of touch with ordinary Americans and failing to pay a full share of tax, Romney he wanted to "make sure the top 1% keeps paying the current share they're paying or more."
Romney's tax plans for individuals are less generous than those of his rivals. Santorum proposes two tax brackets, 28% and 10%, and Gingrich a flat rate tax of 15%.
The crowd in Chandler was smaller than Romney had hoped for. He failed to fill the gymnasium, making unnecessary a planned overspill room. He has had trouble attracting big crowds it should have been easier to attract supporters in Arizona, which has a big Mormon population.
In his speech, Romney dropped mention of Santorum, who he had been referencing recently. He also ditched references to "Washington insiders", code for Santorum and Gingrich, opting instead to stay positive and present his own policies.
The four remaining candidates – Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Ron Paul – go into Wednesday night's CNN debate knowing a good performance could tip the balance in the upcoming nominating states.
The debate, in Mesa, Arizona, is the first n a month, a relatively long gap in what up until now had been a series of debates on an almost weekly basis. There have been more than 20 debates so far, depending on how they are counted. After Wednesday night's encounter, there is only one more scheduled, in Portland, Oregon, on March 19.
Santorum needs a good performance in the CNN debate to maintain the momentum he gained from his victories earlier this month in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri. He has steadily improved as a debater since the autumn.
He can expect to be questioned about comments he made about theology and a reference to Satan. Such comments may harm him in a general election but do not necessarily go down badly with Republican audiences.
As its Arizona, questions are likely on illegal immigration but the main issue will be the economy, giving Romney as chance to highlight his tax proposals.
Romney, still favourite to take the nomination but only just, also needs a good showing in Michigan and Arizona, both states he should have been able to bank on but where polls show Santorum running neck-and-neck with him. Santorum has also established leads over him in national polls.
Romney has been a poor debater but turned in one strong performance in January which may have been good enough to stop Gingrich building momentum after his South Carolina victory.
Gingrich, who has faded since South Carolina, has a reputation as the best debater but has been subdued recently. He too needs a good debate to regain traction for the Super Tuesday contests that include his home state Georgia.
Ron Paul had been hoping for victory in the Maine caucuses but lost out to Romney. He is working on a long-term plan to accumulate as many delegates as possible to take to the party convention in Tampa, Florida, where he hopes to wrest some concessions, at the least a much-coveted television platform speech.
[h=1]Obama proposes corporate tax cut and says system needs to change[/h] President's plan would set a new corporate tax rate of 28% – but Republicans in Congress say that is still too high
Barack Obama's plan would mean corporations would have to give up dozens of cherished loopholes and subsidies. Photograph: Andrew Harrer/EPA
President Barack Obama on Wednesday proposed a lower corporate tax rate and an end to dozens of loopholes he said helps US companies move jobs and profits overseas. "It's not right and it needs to change," he said.
The president wants to lower the US corporate tax rate from the current 35%, the highest in the world after Japan. Under his plan, manufacturers would receive incentives so that their effective tax rate could be even lower.
Obama's election-year plan would set a new 28% corporate tax rate, still higher than the 25% rate sought by congressional Republicans.
"It's a framework that lowers the corporate tax rate and broadens the tax base in order to increase competitiveness for companies across the nation," Obama said in a statement.
Corporations would have to give up dozens of cherished loopholes and subsidies that they now enjoy. Corporations with overseas operations would also face an unspecified minimum tax on their foreign earnings.
The proposal outlined by Geithner would also eliminate tax loopholes and subsidies that Geithner called "fundamentally unfair."
Obama also would set a minimum tax on the foreign earning of US companies.
Chances of accomplishing such change in the tax system are slim in a year dominated mostly with presidential and congressional elections. But for Obama, the proposal is part of a larger tax plan that is central to his re-election strategy.
Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner, who rolled out the plan on Wednesday morning, acknowledged that the debate "will be politically contentious."
"Some will say these proposals are too tough on business, and others will say that they're not tough enough," he said.
Obama's plan would be part of a larger effort to overhaul the US tax system, and it dovetails with Obama's call for raising taxes on millionaires and maintaining current rates on individuals making $200,000 or less. But White House spokesman Jay Carney said Congress could act separately on the corporate tax component of Obama's overall tax strategy.
Republican reaction was mixed. House Ways and Means Committee chairman Dave Camp said he appreciated the administration's plan, though it set a corporate tax rate that is higher than the 25% he has proposed. He faulted Obama, however, for not offering a wholesale overhaul of the entire tax system for businesses and individuals.
"While this is a good step by the administration, I will borrow from the president's own words to Congress from just yesterday: 'Don't stop here. Keep going,'" Camp said in a statement. But seantor Orrin Hatch, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, dismissed the president's plan as a "set of bullet points designed more for the campaign trail than an actual blueprint for fixing our tax code."
While the 35% nominal corporate tax rate ranks among the highest, deductions, credits and exemptions allow many corporations to pay taxes at a much lower rate.
Under the framework proposed by the administration, the rate cuts, closed loopholes and the minimum tax on overseas earning would result in no increase to the deficit.
That means that many businesses that slip through loopholes or enjoy subsidies and pay an effective tax rate that is substantially less than the 35% corporate tax could end up paying more under Obama's plan. Others, however, would pay less while some would simply benefit from a more simplified system.
Reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 28% would reduce tax revenues by about $700bn over the next decade, according to an estimate prepared in October by the Joint Committee on Taxation, the official scorekeeper for Congress.
That means lawmakers would have to find about $70bn a year in tax increases to keep the package from adding to the budget deficit, hardly an easy task. In 2010, the corporate income tax raised a total of $278bn, according to the Internal Revenue Service. Corporate income taxes have been shrinking as a share of overall federal taxes for decades. In 2010, corporate income taxes made up just 12% of all federal tax receipts, down from 24% in 1960, according to the IRS.
Geithner said the Obama plan aims to help US businesses, especially manufacturers who face strong international competition. Obama's plan would lower the effective rate for manufacturers to 25% by offering other tax incentives that emphasize development of clean energy systems.
Many members of both parties have said they favor overhauling the nation's individual and corporate tax systems, which they complain have rates that are too high and are riddled with too many deductions.
The corporate tax debate has made its way into the presidential contest. Mitt Romney has called for a 25% rate, Newt Gingrich would cut the corporate tax rate to 12.5%, and Rick Santorum would exempt domestic manufacturers from the corporate tax and halve the top rate for other businesses.
While Obama has been promoting various aspects of his economic agenda in personal appearances and speeches, the decision to leave the corporate tax plan to the Treasury Department to unveil signaled its lower priority.
What's more, the administration's framework leaves much for Congress to decide - a deliberate move by the administration to encourage negotiations but which also doesn't subject the plan to detailed scrutiny.
Obama's plan is not as ambitious as a House Republican proposal that would lower the corporate rate to 25%.
Still, Obama has said corporate tax rates are too high and has proposed eliminating tax breaks for American companies that move jobs and profits overseas. He also has proposed giving tax breaks to US manufacturers, to firms that return jobs to this country and to companies that relocate to some communities that have lost big employers.
Geithner told a House committee last week that the administration wants to create more incentives for corporations to invest in the United States.
"We want to bring down the rate, and we think we can, to a level that's closer to the average of that of our major competitors," Geithner told the House Ways and Means Committee.
White House economic adviser Gene Sperling has advocated a minimum tax on global profits. Currently many corporations do not invest overseas profits in the United States to avoid the 35% tax rate.
[h=1][/h]
[h=1]Rick Santorum v Barack Obama: America's clash of civilisations[/h] If Santorum is nominated, we will get an almighty, but perhaps welcome referendum on the kind of country we want to live in
Rick Santorum, in signature sweater-vest, delivers some homespun wisdom in Minnesota. Photograph: Justin Dernier/Corbis
The most practical – or, at least, the more practical – Republican candidate is, after all the high jinks, supposed to win, which has been the singular case for Mitt Romney. But it is now suddenly quite possible that the least-practical, most far-fetched figure, will pull it off.
This is a level of implausibility not just in the context of this campaign, but in history. There has never been a major party candidate as far from the norm as Rick Santorum – unless, that is, he's about to redefine the norm. Not even Barry Goldwater, the rightwing hawk whose 1964 loss remains the Republican party's biggest ever, was this far from the mainstream.
If Santorum wins next week in Michigan and Arizona, now distinct possibilities, that would come close to assuring this fabulous outcome. It's a kind of development that the earnest and process-oriented political media – believing that politics, by its nature, reflects the norm – seem so far unable to characterize effectively. Even the hysterical and shambolic nature of the Republican field over two cycles has not seemed to prepare anyone for how to account for Rick Santorum's possible nomination. Everybody is still quite deadpan. Nobody's yet officially gobsmacked.
There's almost a kind of private joke aspect to what's happening here: the liberal press seems to have cagily and humorously exercised its bias by not piling on Rick Santorum, hence helping him and hurting the Republicans. Or the joke all along has been Romney: a candidate so perversely unlovable that every clown has been able, however briefly, to be his contrast gainer.
This is what we know: the anti-Romney ideal is much stronger than Romney himself. The combined anti-Romney numbers have won handily in every primary so far (even in New Hampshire, Romney's only big win, Gingrich, Paul, and Santorum beat him). And because politics is timing it is the last anti-Romney standing who could slay him-and that's Rick Santorum.
But perhaps there is an even greater, historic logic at work.
The Republican party, at least since its Ronald Reagan-era reconstitution, has cultivated its blood grievance against liberal values and lifestyle (in spite of Reagan's own personal lack of heart for this fight). Of the Republican party's two main themes – the other being anti-tax and anti-state control – the social fight has been the more animated and, arguably, the more heartfelt.
The true antagonism in the country is not about the administration of government, but about how we live, between new and evolving, and old and fixed standards of conduct. It's the most fundamental western debate: secular or not, reason or ritual.
It is hard to imagine a candidate who might more completely personify the God-driven, anti-scientific, father-centered, my-way-or-the-highway, throwback life than Rick Santorum. Even the most conservative politicians tend to live a pretty modern-world, yuppified life. Not Santorum. Part of his appeal, particularly against the ever-shifting and mollifying Romney, is that his shtick is real. Mind-blowing, but real. Not only does he have far more children than any modern, striving, trying-to-do-better American has, but he home-schools them. Home-schooling is one of those things I think most Americans understand: a true and arduous commitment, albeit one for weirdoes. You get it all with Santorum: the Christian nation; the traditional family; the sexual aversions (including one against contraception); the homemade theology.
It even seems likely that he wouldn't run from his primary-playing wedge campaign during the general election: what we're seeing now is what we'd probably get, no matter how cockamamie and dumbfounding.
In other words, this would be a campaign starkly pitting the two competing strands of American culture against each other. It's a remarkable opportunity: finally, a referendum on all things that have so upset the conservatives and have been so embraced by everybody else – abortion; gay marriage; sexual license; the new family (or non-family) life. How could it not be? These are Rick Santorum's issues, his reason for being here. This is the debate, however futile, he seems to believe God made him for.
But what if? Elections are like jury trials. The outcome is necessarily unpredictable. What if Europe goes over the abyss and with it the nascent US recovery? What if Israel goes after Iran and gas goes to eight bucks a gallon at the pump? What if the unforeseen happens, and President Obama fumbles his response?
Then … President Santorum? And a preposterous chapter in American history?
But then again, the compelling, if also train-wreck, aspect about Santorum is that it really does seem like he'd rather be right than be president. His wealthy Super Pac supporters seem similarly hell-bent (and rich enough not to need to worry about actually winning an election). No matter what happens and how much the Democrats might find themselves up against it, Santorum seems determined to make this an up-or-down vote for the way he is living and wants others to live, as opposed to the way most Americans have actually chosen to live.
That vote, by sheers numbers of people living by modern conventions, seems preordained.
The prospect of a defeat of this magnitude is obviously as horrifying to Republican leaders and stalwarts – all who seem to be lining up in a panicky defense of Romney – as Santorum's actual election would be to liberals. Although I'm not sure it should be. What happens to the Republicans after Romney tries to fashion a middling and, to conservatives, quisling general election position and is defeated (and who is expecting otherwise)? In four years, another round of eccentricity and exaggeration?
An up-or-down vote on far-out rightwing lifestyle prescriptions – is the country for or against, and what by what proportion?-is as good for the Republicans as for liberals. It marginalizes the margin.
Everybody has avoided this issue. The passion of the committed has been too great to face. They are a minority whose limited future has oddly fortified them.
So, finally, in a likely landslide of teachable-moment proportions, we can vote for how we want to live. That'll be a vote everybody will want to cast.
[h=1]Jeb Bush eyed as latest 'white knight' candidate in GOP presidential race[/h] Former Florida governor was critical of current field in a speech this week, prompting rumours he could be a surprise contender
Jeb Bush, right, with his brother President George Bush at an Orlando fundraiser in 2006. Photograph: Jason Reed/Reuters
Speculation that a late challenger might still emerge in the increasingly bitter race for the Republican presidential nomination is set to surge after former Florida governor Jeb Bush made remarks criticising the current field.
Bush, who is the brother of President George W Bush and son of President George Bush Sr, is a beloved figure among many conservatives who see him as a strong and charismatic leader who is popular in the must-win swing state of Florida.
That contrasts with a widespread unease among many Republican leaders and grassroots activists with the remaining crop of Republican candidates and the vitriolic nature of the fight between frontrunner Mitt Romney and his main challengers Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich.
In answers to questions from the audience after a speech in Dallas on Thursday, Bush cautioned the remaining Republican campaigns from drifting so far to the right that they put off the key independent voters needed to beat President Barack Obama in November.
"I think it's important for the candidates to recognise though they have to appeal to primary voters, and not turn off independent voters that will be part of a winning coalition," Bush told the audience according to CBS news.
Bush also directly took on the strident tone of recent Republican debates, accusing participants of scare-mongering. "I used to be a conservative and I watch these debates and I'm wondering, I don't think I've changed, but it's a little troubling sometimes when people are appealing to people's fears and emotion rather than trying to get them to look over the horizon for a broader perspective and that's kind of where we are," he said according to Fox News.
With Mitt Romney failing so far to secure the nomination but with no convincing challenger emerging to unseat him, many Republican pundits have speculated about the possibility that none of the current field will be able to amass enough support to secure the nomination this August in Tampa.
Though that is still unlikely, and Romney remains favourite to win the contest, it has led to a slew of names being mentioned as possible "white knights" who could still enter the race or emerge at Tampa as a compromise candidate to unite a splintered party. They include Bush, New Jersey governor Chris Christie, Indiana governor Mitch Daniels and Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan.
Though none of these figures have expressed any intention to run, and several have repeatedly denied it, Bush's comments are likely to set the rumour mill spinning furiously.
They also come after Tea Party favourite Sarah Palin entered the fray, raising the idea that she might see herself as her party's saviour. In recent interviews the former Alaska governor has said she would "help" out the party if a contested convention happened and told CNN earlier this month that she believed such an event would be a good thing. "I don't think it would be a negative for the party That's part of the competition, that's part of the process and it may happen," she said.
Ron Paul's campaign has also complicated matters. Though the libertarian-leaning Texan congressman has not yet won a single state's popular ballot, he is trying to build up a large number of delegates to take to Tampa. In caucus states, where complex rules mean the number of delegates assigned to a candidate can outweigh their score in the popular vote, Ron Paul's campaign is working hard to win as much support as possible. That could see him amass a body of delegates in Tampa that far exceeds his standings in the polls and makes a contested convention, with no one having enough support to secure victory, more likely.
[h=1]Mitt Romney in talks over nationwide version of tough state immigration laws[/h] Immigration adviser Kris Kobach, the man behind controversial 'self-deportation' laws in Arizona and Alabama, says policy could force out 5 million illegal immigrants in just four years
Kris Kobach has been dubbed the 'dark lord of the anti-illegal immigration movement'. Photograph: Ed Zurga/AP
Mitt Romney has discussed the possibility of imposing a nationwide crackdown on undocumented aliens, a move that his leading immigration adviser believes could force more than a million people to quit the country every year.
Kris Kobach, the source of some of Romney's most controversial ideas on immigration, has told the Guardian that he has been in direct discussions with the presidential candidate about possible changes to federal policy should Romney win the Republican nomination and go on to take the White House.
The changes would see "attrition through enforcement" – the state-level clampdown pioneered by Kobach in Arizona, Alabama and several other states – extended across the entire US in an attempt to winkle undocumented workers out of the country.
Kobach estimates that within the first four years of a new Republican presidency, as many as half of the current pool of undocumented aliens – some 5.5 million – could be made to flee by introducing much more aggressive enforcement of immigration documents.
The idea is to make the legal environment so hostile to undocumented families, and work so hard to come by, that they will choose to depart of their own volition – "self-deportation", as Kobach calls it.
Kobach, who has been dubbed the "dark lord of the anti-illegal immigration movement", was co-author of tough new laws in Arizona, Alabama, Missouri and Oklahoma. He has also advised Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia on how to toughen up their policies.
The aggressive nature of these immigration measures has pitted the federal government against the states, with the justice department intervening directly by suing Arizona to halt its law. The case will be decided by the US supreme court this summer.
Andre Segura, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, said making attrition through enforcement a federal policy would have devastating consequences nationwide. "Our immigration laws have to be enforced in a strategic manner, not through street patrols impacting on the everyday lives of individuals."
Despite these legal battles, Kobach now hopes to influence the federal approach to immigration in the event of a Romney presidency.
"I have advised Romney directly, and his close team around him, that attrition through enforcement has been working, that self-deportation has been observed in Arizona and Alabama, and that this really does need to be part of our national effort," he said.
Kobach added that "you could reasonably expect that in the first four years of a new administration, if attrition through enforcement were made the centrepiece of national immigration policy, you could see the illegal alien population cut in half."
The prospect of more than 5 million undocumented immigrants, mostly Mexican, quitting America within the first term of a Romney administration puts into perspective the charged nature of the immigration debate within this year's primary season. Romney has made a hard line on immigration a central plank of his campaign for the nomination.
In Thursday night's Republican debate in Mesa, Arizona, he praised the state's controversial law SB 1070, calling it a "model for the nation". SB 1070, the law currently under review by the supreme court following a challenge from the Obama administration, would require police officers to check the status of anyone they stop should they have a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is in the US without permission.
Romney also praised the 2007 law that penalises Arizonan businesses for employing unauthorised workers – a system known as E-Verify. He told the debate: "I will make sure we have an E-Verify system and require employers to check the documents of workers. If an employer hires someone that has not gone through E-Verify, they're going to get sanctioned just like they do for not paying their taxes."
Romney's stance on immigration is mirrored by that of his main rival Rick Santorum. However, it is in stark contrast to that of Newt Gingrich, who has said he favours a limited amnesty for those who have lived in the US for many years, and has derided the concept of "self-deportation" as a fantasy.
Romney has aligned himself publicly with Kobach who acts as his unpaid adviser and who endorsed him in January. The two men went on the campaign trail in South Carolina last month, after which Romney hailed Kobach as "a true leader on securing our borders".
Kobach, who is secretary of state in Kansas, has become the target in recent months of protests from Hispanic and immigration reform groups, such as America's Voice, that have accused him of being an extremist and of waging a legal vendetta against Latino communities in the US.
"It's not suprising you get people who engage in simplistic ad hominem attacks," Kobach said. "They do that when they are running out of ideas."
Kobach said he expects Romney to take the fight over immigration policy to Barack Obama should he win the Republican nomination. "I think he would take this to the campaign stump in the general election, as this is a strong point of contrast with the Obama administration."
Asked to give his definition of a successful immigration policy, Kobach replied: "One that America solves our illegal immigration problem and restores the rule of law. One that takes specific steps to give illegal immigrants incentives to leave on their own, and that makes it very difficult for them to obtain employment."
He pointed to Arizona's clampdown on jobs for unauthorised workers, which prompted a 16% decline in the state's population of undocumented families between 2008 and 2010 – more than twice the national rate.
He said that if the same policies were replicated at a federal level they could result in a mass exodus of undocumented immigrants. "If we did that on a national level it would have a massive effect – causing people to self-deport, discouraging illegal aliens from entering the country, because they would know it would be really tough to get a job."
Kobach, who took a doctorate in politics from Brasenose college, Oxford, has a rowing oar from his 1991 Isis crew on the wall of his state office, along with the heads of two deer that he shot, he says, with a bow.
After Oxford he studied law at Yale and went on to become a law professor specialising in issues of citizenship. His interest in immigration policy deepened as a result of 9/11, when he was working in the justice department within the Bush administration.
He said he was struck by the revelation that five of the 19 hijackers had been in the US illegally, and of those three were pilots. "If our immigration system had been more effective we could have stopped three of the four pilots from taking off that day. That was a real awakening for me," he said.
Of his many legal forays into state-level immigration rules, the most controversial has been the provision in Alabama's HB 56 that instructs school teachers to check the legal status of their pupils. There were reports – which Kobach described as "vague" – of thousands of Hispanic parents taking their children out of school for fear of the consequences.
Kobach said that the provision would not deny education to any undocumented children. But he did admit that some children would have to be taken out of school as a consequence of "self-deportation", even in cases where the children were born in the US and thus had US citizenship. "We want families to stay together, so obviously where a family has school-aged children their departure would also be inevitable," he said.
[h=1]Mitt Romney campaign hits Michigan for must-win contest in home state[/h] Rick Santorum accused of using robocalls to gain Democrat votes as polls show candidates neck and neck
Mitt Romney poses for photos at a campaign rally in Rockford, Michigan. Photograph: Gerald Herbert/AP
A row broke out on the eve of the crucial Republican primary in Michigan over allegations that Rick Santorum has launched robocalls pleading to Democrats to vote for him.
Polls show Santorum neck and neck with frontrunner Mitt Romney in a contest to choose a Republican to take on Barack Obama in November that is also open to independents and Democrats.
Romney denounced Santorum for allegedly seeking Democrat votes. "He is now willing to wear the other team's jersey," Romney's campaign team said.
The row came as both men criss-crossed Michigan in a final round of campaigning before Tuesday's showdown.
After the long slog of primaries and caucuses since Iowa on 3 January, Michigan could be make or break for both campaigns, with Romney either confirming his frontrunner status or handing it over to Santorum before next week's Super Tuesday contests, when 10 states hold elections to choose delegates who go on to nominate the presidential candidate.
Democrat activists have been encouraging Democrats to vote against Romney to add to the state of chaos in the Republican race.
The Romney camp claim Santorum is behind the robocalls. The website Talking Points Memo reported that the robocall has a narrator seeking to exploit Romney's opposition to the federal bailout of the car industry in 2008. "Michigan Democrats can vote in the Republican primary on Tuesday. Why is it so important? Romney supported the bailout for his Wall Street billionaire buddies, but opposed the auto bailout. That was a slap in the face to every Michigan worker. And we're not going to let Romney get away with it," the robocall says.
It then claims the call is supported by Rick Santorum.
It would be potentially damaging for Santorum to recruit the help of Democrats.
Santorum was in the lead in the state two weeks ago but has seen that steadily vanish. But polls on Monday showed he may be enjoying a late surge.
He is bringing out big crowds in a way that Romney has failed so far to do.
At a rally in Kalamazoo on Monday night, he filled a hall to its capacity of 400. An overflow room took another 150 and the organisers claimed a further 400 were turned away.
Santorum told the crowd: "I think we are going to surprise a few people tomorrow night."
Romney's campaign has repeatedly misfired, with mistakes such as choosing as a campaign venue a near-empty football stadium in Detroit on Friday.
At the same event he reinforced his image as the mega-rich candidate out of touch with the average American by casually mentioning his wife had two luxury Cadillacs.
His campaign team were still addressing the issue on Monday, saying the Cadillacs quote would not resonate in Michigan as it was the centre of US car manufacturing.
Romney made a similar gaffe on Sunday. He briefly left the campaign trail in Michigan to put in an appearance at a Nascar racing event in Daytona, Florida, hoping he would get more television coverage than at his rallies. He admitted he did not follow Nascar as closely as the most ardent fans. "But I have some friends who are Nascar owners," he said.
Polling firm Public Policy Polling puts Romney on 39% in Michigan, Santorum on 37%, Ron Paul on 19% and Newt Gingrich on 9%. In Arizona, where about half the electorate have already voted, the results so far are estimated to be two to one in Romney's favour.
National polls suggest that the intense infighting in what is turning into a protracted Republican race is damaging the party, and that Barack Obama will be the main beneficiary. He will face the eventual winner of the Republican nomination race for the White House in November.
Santorum said that even to run Romney close in his home state was a victory of sorts. "This is not a place, frankly, that I thought we were going to be competing at the level we're competing," he said.
Santorum, the most socially conservative of the Republican candidates, changed tactics over the weekend, from criticising Romney over his opposition to Obama's bailout of the car industry in 2008 an emotive issue in Detroit to tackling social issues.
He rejected the idea of separation of church and state and said the famous speech by John F Kennedy making the case for absolute separation made him feel sick. "To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up," Santorum said.
One of the most prominent home schooling supporters in the US, he has also started sniping at universities. "We have some real problems at our college campuses with political correctness, with an ideology that is forced upon people who, you know, may not agree with the politically correct left doctrine," he said on Sunday.
Santorum's campaign is sending out mailshots quoting popular conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh describing him as "the last conservative standing".
If Santorum were to win in Michigan it would give him momentum for the 10 Super Tuesday contests next week. The most important is in Ohio, where a Quinnipiac poll on Monday showed Santorum on 36%, Romney on 29%, Gingrich on 17% and Paul on 11%.
To win the nomination a candidate needs 1,114 delegates, a majority of those attending the party convention in Tampa, Florida, in August. So far Romney has only 123, Santorum 72, Gingrich 32 and Paul 19, according to an AP tally.
There are 29 delegates at stake in Arizona, a winner-takes-all contest, and 30 in Michigan, where the delegates will be distributed using roughly proportional representation. On Super Tuesday 419 delegates will be at stake.
Gingrich has not been campaigning in Michigan or Arizona, treating them as a lost cause, and is hoping to revive his campaign with wins on Super Tuesday in his home state, Georgia, and Tennessee, which he toured on Monday.
Romney is the favourite to take Massachusetts, Vermont and Idaho, as well as Virginia, where Gingrich and Santorum, in organisational mix-ups, failed to get on the ballot.
Reflecting Santorum's growing importance, he is to receive secret service protection from Tuesday. Romney has had secret service protection since 1 February.
Gingrich has also requested protection. It is provided on the basis of importance as reflected in polls and also if specific threats have been made, as was the case with former Republican candidate Herman Cain who has since quit the race.
[h=2]US elections 2012[/h] [h=1]Michigan and Arizona Republican primary results - live[/h] Mitt Romney takes Michigan and Arizona primaries
Boost for former Mass. governor ahead of Super Tuesday
Exit polls suggest many Democrats voted in Michigan
Live coverage as final votes are cast
This page will update automatically every minute: On | Off
Mitt Romney supporters celebrate at his primary night party in Novi, Michigan. Photograph: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
11.23pm:Ewen McAskill has a full account of the brief detention of the Economist reporter, identified as the paper's Midwest correspondent, Natasha Loder.
The Romney campaign hand out two kinds of passes one for the risers that let you into the hall where he is speaking and one for a separate and usually much larger press filing centre.
Although there was space in the hall when Romney was about to speak, security would not allow reporters in without proper accreditation. A group were standing outside the door watching from the hall when the security began to close the doors.
There was a shouting match, with American reporters also being closed out and incensed at their treatment.
Natasha from the Economist was among those protesting. A reporter who was there said she had sat down to stop the doors being closed. That is when the police cuffed her. A few minutes later, they took the cuffs off and it was all over. I think she is somewhat embarrassed about the whole thing.
11.05pm: In the rosy glow of Mitt Romney's victory in Arizona, the Guardian's Ed Pilkington even manages to chat with Cindy McCain tonight:
I wanted to put to her a question that has always intrigued me. Isn't she astonishingly relieved not to be on the campaign trail again this year, I mean it seems so gruelling and for the wives intolerable?
"Yes, I am relieved," was her heart-felt reply. She said she was grateful to have had the experience of being with her husband as he ran for the presidency in 2008, "but it is very hard. I feel for Ann [Romney], we talk about it often."
What's the worst part of it, I asked. "The time. Each day is 20 hours long, there's no break, and it's relentless."
And Ann Romney is doing it for the second time running, I said. That was a mistake! "I did it twice too," McCain corrected me. "In 2000 and 2008."
10.57pm: So that was another paint-by-numbers effort from the Big Book of Mitt Romney speeches.
According to my colleague Ewen MacAskill, live at the scene, there was more excitement when police briefly handcuffed a British journalist from the Economist as she was trying to watch Romney. But she was quickly released.
Maybe security had been listening to Rick Santorum's speech about the British bad guys in the revolutionary war, and were enraged at the thought of those crisp uniforms.
10.47pm: Now it's Mitt Romney's turn, although first it's Ann Romney, who thanks "our wonderful surrogates Donald Trump". Oh yes, Donald Trump.
Now Romney's on his hind legs, speaking words. After brief thanks for his cast of helpers Jan Brewer, John McCain and so on Mitt is quickly onto the Obama bashing.
Hilariously, Mitt Romney who has been running for president since sometime in 2006 is accusing Barack Obama of running for election. Um.
Ann Romney introduces Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and their son Tagg at his election night party in Novi, Michigan. Photograph: Carlos Osorio/AP Anyway, the message is that everything is awful, thanks to Obama. 10.44pm: The Guardian's Ewen MacAskill himself British is not impressed by Santorum's weirdo speech:
That was a terrible concession speech from Santorum. Rambling. Especially bad was his harking back to the Revolutionary days, and the battle for freedom against the British. It seems odd to me that in 2012 a politician should still be banging on about the revolution. It is not a one-off by Santorum. At his rally in Kalamazoo on Monday night, the warm-up act was a supporter reading the speech of revolutionary hero Patrick Henry for 20 minutes.
10.34pm:Rick Santorum's speech ends on a psychedelic note: discussing the British army during the American revolution: "Their uniforms were crisp and stiff."
Ana Marie Cox
✔
@anamariecox
Totally voting for Santorum to defeat the British.
Ana Marie Cox forgets who her current employers are.
Rick Santorum speaks to supporters at an election night rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Photograph: Paul Sancya/AP 10.27pm: It is being reported that Rick Santorum called Mitt Romney to concede Michigan before starting his speech, who has so far failed to mention that fact.
The NYT's Adam Nagourney explains why.
adam nagourney @adamnagourney
Santorum is trying to do to Romney what Clinton did to Tsongas in NH in 1992; get out on TV 1st and make 2nd place a victory.
10.19pm:And so it came to pass. NBC, Fox, ABC and the Associated Press all call Michigan for Mitt Romney as Santorum is speaking.
Now Santorum is waving a piece of shale. It's energy.
Fox News shows a split screen of Santorum speaking and the crowd reaction to Romney's win at the Romney HQ. 10.16pm: Rick Santorum has made the wise choice of getting up on stage and doing his post-match speech now, before the bad news is confirmed that he's a loser in Michigan. There's a danger the networks will call it while he's in mid-speech.
Santorum is making the best of a bad job and arguing that he did pretty well in Michigan, which is true:
A month ago they didn't know who we are. They do now. What an absolutely great night. I am so thankful to so many people. We came to the backyard of one of my opponents in a race that everyone said just to ignore. And the people of Michigan looked into the hearts of the candidates and all I have to say is that I love them back.
Now he's thanking everyone. Uh oh: "This is a chance for you to get to know Rick Santorum," says Rick Santorum. 10.01pm: With 60% of precincts reporting in Michigan, Mitt Romney is on 40% compared with 36% for Santorum. I'm double-calling this one for Romney. Please AP, CNN et al, don't make me triple-call it. You're already looking bad. 9.56pm: Definitely not because no-one else wants to speak to him, John McCain grants an EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW with the Guardian's Ed Pilkington:
I've just had a one-to-one chat with John McCain and asked him this: If he had just one tip to give whoever wins the Republican nomination on how to defeat Barack Obama in November, what would it be?
"Go head-to-head with Obama on his record," McCain told me. "Make him answer to his record. After all, this was the man of hope and change in 2008 - so what has he actually done? That's what you've got to go at, and it's what Obama is running away from."
Fact: Ed once interviewed Sarah Palin. So he's now collected the set.
The Guardian US @Edpilkington
Just heard from Romney's 2 sons matt & craig. Matt related how his dad saved him from drowning - he'd would do the same for America. CHEESY
9.54pm: Back in Michigan and the Mitt Romney Express is slowly pulling out of the station. Santorum needed a bigger lead to counteract the biog Detroit 'burbs vote and he didn't get enough of one to make it a fight.
Romney could win this by a helathy margin, say, four or five percentage points.
The Huffington Post's Sam Stein continues the tree theme of the evening.
It was Romney who knows a thing or two about being wooden who declared Michigan's trees to be "just the right height" on Friday. 9.40pm: The Guardian's Ed Pilkington struggles to hear John McCain speaking at the Romney victory party in Arizona:
John McCain, the guest of honour at the Mitt Romney victory party, has just been speaking to the media. Okay, here's a confession. there were so many cameras all around him that I could barely hear a word he said. A Martian who had landed here at the Hyatt hotel would think that McCain had won the presidential election in 2008.
Anyway, the bit that I could catch from McCain was pretty interesting, because it was hardly the most glowing tribute that could be paid to a politician who had just won 29 electoral votes in Arizona. McCain admitted that Romney had a gaffe problem, though he said the former governor of Massachusetts' words keep getting "taken out of context". He also said that Romney "has more work to do, but he's doing it," which sounds a little bit double-headed to me.
McCain was interesting on why Michigan was so much tighter between Romney and Rick Santorum than Arizona. "In Arizona we are hurting as much as anywhere in America. There are some social conservatives here, but there concerns weren't as important as our economic woes." In Michigan, he said, social issues were more to the fore, playing to Santorum's strengths.
Supporters of Mitt Romney cheer in reaction to news that he was the projected winner in the Arizona primary. Photograph: Gerald Herbert/AP 9.36pm: The heavy hand of the US Secret Service reaches the Guardian's Adam Gabbatt at the Rick Santorum party in Grand Rapids, where supporters are seeking divine intervention as the results point to a Romney victory.
Rick Santorum's secret service entourage have proved to be something of a buzz-kill already at his results party here in Grand Rapids. This reporter was innocently mingling among the 200-300 supporters here in the lavish ballroom of the Amway Grand Plaza hotel when I was told that press were not allowed out of the press area which is mostly stationed behind the television cameras.
"You can stand on the edge and flag people down," said one security official.
Luckily I had already grabbed a chat with Mary Lou Harig and Savina Kalinowski, standing at the edge of the crowd sipping bottled water. "I've never seen Santorum behind since I've been standing here, so he's starting out strong," said Harig, as we watched the results come in.
The 63-year-old former school teacher and former nurse who was born, raised and refined here in Grand Rapids, added: "I'm hoping, I'm praying and I'm voting."
Kalinowski, 77, moved to the US aged 29, and said her support for Santorum was influenced by having lived under the shadow of the Soviet Union. "I lived in Poland in a communist country," she said. "One of the reasons we came here was for religious freedom and churches."
Asked about Santorum's chances, Kalinowski added: "I am almost sure that he will win. So many people are praying and that can do anything. He [God] can do anything."
9.25pm: With 30% of the vote counted in Michigan, Romney is building a lead. He's going to win this. Dammit, I'll call it now. Take that, Wolf Blitzer. 9.24pm: More on the Snowe storm that erupted this evening, after longtime Maine Republican senator Olympia Snowe announced she was stepping down this evening.
Jonathan Chait in New York magazine wonders if Snowe is poised to join Americans Elect, the vaguely creepy "bi-partisan" and well-funded outfit that is trying to back a third party run. 9.19pm: While it's neck and neck in Michigan, in Arizona you could cut the tension with a handkerchief a handkerchief according to the Guardian's Ed Pilkington at the Romney election party, who sees some disturbing details in the exit polls:
The polls have losed in Arizona and there's a huge cry just gone up at the Hyatt hotel in downtown Phoenix where the Romney campaign is holding its election party. CNN has just declared Arizona for Romney revealing the biggest secret since it was disclosed that the Pope was a Catholic. The admittedly limited crowd here is holding up banners saying "Go Mitt Go" and "AZ Hearts Mitt" and other rousing slogans.
Beyond the headline fact that Romney has taken Arizona, which we knew he would do, given that 70% of Republicans voted here early (Romney was the only candidate to be organised in the state) and that 10% are Mormons, the devil in this election will lie in the detail. So the exit polls are worth looking at closely.
My favourite fact from them is that as many as four out of 10 Republican voters in Arizona can't stand John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential candidate who has endorsed Mitt Romney. Why do I like that fact so much? Because McCain is about to appear at this Romney victory party as the guest of honour. Ouch!
The other fact from the exit polls that pickles me is that the proportion of Republican voters who want to see all undocumented Hispanics in Arizona rounded up, ritually humiliated and cast out penniless and naked from the state (I exaggerate only slightly) is roughly the same as the proportion who would like to see hard working Latinos given a path towards citizenship. Why do I like that fact? Because it gives the lie to Romney's disgraceful vote pandering to the Tea Parties and Republican right by talking tough on immigration and vowing to introduce a nationwide clampdown on undocumented families.
I also like it because the live band in front of me is performing in Spanish. Erm, perhaps someone needs to take them aside and have a quiet word...
Supporters Mitt Romney wait at his Michigan primary night rally in Novi. Photograph: Mark Blinch/Reuters 9.12pm: This is only a hunch but I suspect Mitt Romney is going to pull it off in Michigan also. Look at Wayne County, which accounts for 1,200 of the state's 5,000 precincts. So far Romney is trouncing Santorum by 53% to 26%. With just 5% of the county vote total in, Romney has a 5,000 vote edge over Santorum from that one county. 9pm: It's 9pm and all the polls are now closed in Michigan and Arizona. Surprise, surprise, CNN calls Arizona straight out of the box for Mitt Romney. Well that's that: 29 delegates for Romney, under its winner-take-all rules.
Meanwhile, Michigan isn't just too close to call, it's to close to do anything.
So far Rick Santorum is neck and neck with Romney in Michigan but there's almost nothing in it. And until the big three counties around Detroit Macomb, Oakland and the big one, Wayne come in, then we won't know. I'm guessing Romney will win it but it's way too early to be confident. 8.45pm: Mitt Romney's supporters aren't waiting for the result to start whinging, Ewen MacAskill hears at the Romney party tonight:
At Mitt Romney's party outside of Detroit, Romney supporters are far from confident and are getting in their retaliation first, blaming Santorum for his robocalls to Democrats to back him. Supporter after supporter at the party is bringing this up.
Steve Baumer, 52, from Royal Oak, Michigan, an advocate for unemployed workers, said: "I think the race is tight because Santorum has asked the Democrats to come and vote for him, an act of desperation to keep up with Romney. This is one of the few states that allows people to cross over. I would not say it is unfair. It is not breaking the rules but the state needs to look at the rules. The rules should be changed.
"I am fairly confident Romney will win but there is always the possibility he could lose because of the Democrats."
8.40pm: Here's Ron Paul live now speaking in Virginia who is also taking the chance to fill some empty air time before the results come in from Arizona and Michigan.
Hurrah, he's not telling a long, rambling anecdote about cutting down a tree, a la Newt Gingrich earlier. But it's almost as bad: the evils of the Federal Reserve. 8.35pm: Hey, Nevada, Iowa, Colorado this is how you count votes. It's about half an hour since polls closed and the nimble-fingered vote counters of Michigan have already reported about 6% of the vote.
Oh yeah and it's 40% to Santorum and 39% to Romney. 8.25pm:Some actual votes have been counted in Michigan. It's only 2% of precincts reporting, but it's Rick Santorum 42% and Mitt Romney 37%.
Ron Paul's got 10% so far not bad.
CNN says that very early reports from Oakland County which Romney needs to win is neck and neck between Romney and Santorum.
But it's way too early to take anything from it just yet.
Mitt Romney greets a volunteer during a visit to his Michigan campaign headquarters in Livonia, Michigan. Photograph: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images 8.20pm: The Guardian's Ewen MacAskill is hanging out at Romney campaign headquarters in Michigan, and reading the runes from the exit polls so far:
Those exit polls look ominous for Romney. That is a high percentage of Democrats turning out, much higher than in 2008. If you assume they are mainly in it for mischief, that could tip it to Santorum. Also a lot of conservatives interviewed for the exit polls have said that social issues like abortion are a big issue, so that points to Santorum too.
There are not many Romney staffers at his party so far in Novi, on the outskirts of Detroit. Some supporters drifiting in. Romney's remarks about 'mistakes were made' today reflect a bit of a post-mortem going on within his campaign about what has gone wrong: that is not an admission of defeat, just that they had anticipated having it all locked up by now.
8.15pm:Newt Gingrich is cleverly soaking up some free air time by nipping in with a speech in Georgia, where he's campaigning ahead of Super Tuesday.
So far it's kind of tedious. He's telling a story about a tree. It's a tale of young Newt Gingrich and his friends, all college professors, making a hash out of cutting down a big tree. The point of the story seems to be: don't let Newt Gingrich cut down your tree. Even CNN has had enough. 8.10pm: Here's audio of one of those pro Rick Santorum robocalls to Democrats out in Michigan.
That comes via the helpful people at Talking Points Memo. 8pm: Polls have now closed in 98.8% of Michigan.
Fox News are sticking with the O'Reilly Factor for its usual schedule. Somebody will have to explain to me one day why Fox News has downplayed this Republican contest in recent weeks, with little airtime and not much live coverage. What gives? 7.50pm: Yikes! The Michigan primary has indeed been kidnapped by voters. Nate Silver reports from the exit polls:
According to early-wave exit polls, 59% of voters in Michigan's primary today identified as Republican, versus 41% who said they were independents or Democrats.
The 41% figure is somewhat higher than most recent polls anticipated. Surveys from Public Policy Polling and Rasmussen Reports pegged crossover turnout at 36%, American Research Group at 37% and a Mitchell Research poll at 19%.
Crossover turnout was 32% in Michigan's primary in 2008, according to exit polls, when 7% of Michigan's voters said they were Democrats and 25% said they were independents.
Well there's Mitt Romney's excuse lined up: "I would have got away with it if it wasn't for you pesky Democratic kids." 7.40pm: How close is the race in Michigan? According to all the polling pundits: very close indeed. Imagine trying to slide a silicon wafer between welded steel plates.
Sam Youngman @samyoungman
Just asked Santorum if he's gonna win. Shrugged. "I'm not a pollster. We don't even have a pollster."
The final round of polls in Michigan has yielded one of the closest forecasts yet for the 2012 Republican primaries. Collectively, they give Mitt Romney a laser-thin margin over Rick Santorum, one that falls well within the real-world margin of error for a primary election. Either candidate could come out on top of Michigan's popular vote tonight.
People sometimes apply the term "tossup" a bit too broadly, using it to refer to anything close enough that they don't want to render a prediction about it.
In Michigan, however, the term is appropriate. Rick Santorum, who once trailed Mitt Romney badly in the state, then surged to a clear lead there, then saw Romney regain his footing and pull back ahead, appears to have some late momentum in the race perhaps just enough to win, and perhaps not.
Bret McLaughlin "I voted Rick Santorum, not because I am as socially conservative as he is, but for two reasons," said Bret McLaughlin, a 57 year-old management consultant.
"I moved here from New Castle, Pennsylvania, and Rick Santorum was my senator for two years. So I know him and I trust him. The second reason is I have been deluged and barraged by phone calls from Mitt Romney of a negative nature about Mr Santorum, and it made me angry.
"I'm a long-time Republican who believes in the 11th commandment that you shall not criticise other Republicans."
7.20pm: The word on the streets of Grand Rapids, Michigan, is that Rick Santorum is the one to watch tonight, according to the Guardian's Adam Gabbatt, who has his finger on the Wolverine pulse:
Rick Santorum looks in a strong position in Grand Rapids, in east Michigan, if the people I've just met outside the city's Precinct 1 polling station are anything to go by. I spoke to nine people before my fingers stopped working, with all but one having voted for the former Pennsylvania senator.
"I appreciate his views," said Cindy, 50, who declined to give her last name. "Certainly as a Christian I appreciate the fact he puts God first and would put that as a priority if he governs, because we've gotten away from that in America."
Santorum has put a lot of work into the east of the state - his results party is here in Grand Rapids tonight - and it would seem to be paying off.
"I think he's just a normal, family guy and I just like what he says," said a woman named Mary. "He's right to life and he's strong on his convictions."
A woman who had just voted Santorum and was now "dashing off to meet her husband" told me as we crossed the car park: "I just need a conservative president and I'm hoping he has a very good chance."
The one person I spoke to who did not vote for Santorum, Mark Zacha, had plumped for Mitt Romney. "I think he has the best chance of beating President Obama," said Zacha, a 52-year-old business owner who said Santorum was "too right wing". "He's way too conservative in social issues."
7.15pm: If Santorum wins Michigan that will be a trifecta of woe for the Republican party in the space of a few hours:
1. An extended, bloody presidential primary and internal civil war 2. Olympia Snowe steps down, most probably costing the GOP a Senate seat 3. The Dow Jones index closed above 13,000 for the first time since the financial crisis struck in 2008
Barack Obama may well celebrate with a quick Marlboro Silver on the Truman balcony tonight. 7.10pm: Exit polls from Michigan! And so far they tell us ... not very much.
So 33% of voters say "beating Obama" is the best quality in a candidate, 23% say "strong moral character", 22% say "experience" and 15% say "true conservative". So that tends to favour Romney, assuming he's the Obama-beating, experienced candidate.
Also: Santorum is spanking Romney amongst evangelical and religious-orientated voters. Not literally, obviously.
In Arizona: late deciders backed Rick Santorum over Romney by 40%-33%. But who cares? If he gets a similar swing in Michigan, Santorum is doing well. 7.05pm: The answer to the question of who wins Michigan is the central question of the night. Here's what the four candidates will be looking for for a path to victory: Mitt Romney: in his boyhood home state, the Republican frontrunner and favourite to win the nomination will be looking to the vote-rich Detroit suburbs in the east to provide him with a winning margin. The wealthy Detroit metro regions, especially Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties, are where Romney needs to sprint past Santorum and amass a big enough total to hold off the results from the less favourable, more rural parts of the state. Romney is also said to have a big advantage among absentee voters, who may make up around one in four of the total number of votes cast. Rick Santorum: he will be looking to milk the more reliably Republican and conservative areas around Grand Rapids in the western half of the state, and the rural areas that are sparsely populated but home to many evangalical Christians who are more likely to back Santorum. In Detroit, Santorum may have hopes of winning a small but helpful number of Democrat party switchers, the targets of his controversial robocall. Ron Paul: has no hope of winning the state but may be able to pick up a few delegates by winning some of the heavily Democratic-leaning districts where there are few Republican voters and little in the way of organisation. Newt Gingrich: has spent almost no time and certainly no money in the state. Presumably he wants a bloody draw between Santorum and Romney, splitting the state's delegates, and has instead been engaged in preparing for the states that will vote on Super Tuesday in a week's time. 7pm: Welcome to live coverage of the Republican presidential primaries in Arizona and Michigan with the result in Michigan poised on a knife-edge between rivals Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum.
In the final hours the battle between the two degenerated into a slanging match, with Romney accusing Santorum of dirty tricks, and Santorum responding by labeling Romney a whining bully.
Here's what's at stake tonight: Arizona: polls close at 9pm ET (2am GMT) and the result is likely to be called by the US networks shortly afterwards for Mitt Romney. The state's 29 delegates to the Republican national convention will be awarded en bloc to the winner, so it doesn't matter how big Romney's margin of victory is. And it promises to be a large margin, since the other three candidates have barely competed in the state. Michigan: polls close at 8pm ET in the bulk of the state (a tiny proportion 64 out of Michigan's 5,223 precincts are in counties on Central Time where polls close at 9pm ET). Because all the evidence is that this will be a very tight race between Santorum and Romney, the networks are unlikely to declare a winner until a hefty proportion of votes have been counted. So it may not be until well after 10pm ET before a result is announced. To complicate matters, nearly all of Michigan's 30 delegates are awarded to the winner of individual congressional districts.
And make no mistake: all of the recent polls out of the Great Lakes State show Romney and Santorum separated by just a few percentage points. As we have already seen in Iowa and Colorado, close contests mean late nights.
We'll be following all the twists and turns here throughout the night, with input from the Guardian's correspondents in the field in Michigan and Arizona, as well as the cream of the internet, and help from you, the reader, who can join in on the fun in the comments section below.
And remember: you have an hour to enter our forecasting competition. Just predict the order of finishing in tonight's two primaries to win prizes and a boost to self-esteem.
[h=1]Mitt Romney's decisive Michigan win won't be enough to oust Obama[/h] Candidate is now clear favourite for the Republican nomination but a lack of love from the party will hamper his election hopes
Mitt Romney greets crowds with his wife Ann. Link to this video Michigan is a state which has always tried to exert extra influence on the presidential nomination process. On Tuesday it got its way.
Four years ago, Michigan tried unsuccessfully to gatecrash the seemingly unchangeable calendar of the race to the White House by attempting to hold its primary on the same day as traditional first-in-the-field New Hampshire, arguing it was time a big swing state got a more decisive place in the race.
This year, Michigan has had to wait in line for its turn. But Mitt Romney's narrow win over Rick Santorum in Tuesday's Republican primary means that Michigan has provided the decisive result in the 2012 race, effectively guaranteeing that Romney will now get the nomination.
Romney's win was decisive. Yet it was anything but crushing. Romney took the Michigan primary with 41% to Rick Santorum's 38%, with Ron Paul on 12% and Newt Gingrich 7% after a very hard-fought contest. Not for the first time in the 2012 race, therefore, Romney won but failed to get the majority support of his party. That may be a high bar to set, but a frontrunner ought to do better in a state in which he has deep roots and which he won in the 2008 contest with John McCain and in which he has strong name recognition (his father George was a popular Michigan governor). In that respect, the Arizona result last night was perhaps even more significant evidence of Romney's residual weakness.
In a state in which he was the only contender to campaign widely, Romney won Arizona with only 47%. The Republican party does not love Romney yet and perhaps it never will.
More worryingly for Romney and his party, the Michigan exit polling exposed serious weaknesses, which could shape the general election contest against Barack Obama in November. On the basis of the exit polls last night Romney has two large problems. The first is that he polled badly among self-described conservatives and Tea Party supporters. This means these voters may not rally behind him in November and may even be interested in a more conservative third party runner, if one were to emerge (of which there is little sign, admittedly). But the second problem is that Romney did not poll well among Michigan independents or blue collar workers either. Independents split down the middle between Romney and Santorum, while union members broke strongly for Santorum. That may bode ill for Romney's ability to challenge Obama in key states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan itself in November.
As of Wednesday morning, we can say that Romney is now the clearer than ever favourite to win the Republican nomination. Santorum's failure to win in Michigan, although he came close, probably marks the start of a drift back into the pack of challengers. Romney will now be favourite to clean up a lot of further states next week on "Super Tuesday" when Ohio and Virginia will be states to watch. But his party does not love him, and it will take a big turnaround in his fortunes and the economy for him to oust Obama in November.
[h=1]Romney setback as Santorum takes half of Michigan delegates[/h] Proportional system reduces Republican frontrunner's victory in state of his birth to a tie despite winning majority of votes
Mitt Romney turns out to have won only half the delegates in Michigan, tying with Rick Santorum on 15 each. Photograph: Gerald Herbert/AP
Mitt Romney's marginal primary victory in the Michigan has turned out to be a dead heat after the final count showed rival Rick Santorum still won half the state's delegates.
Romney's result in the state of his birth lost some of its lustre as it emerged he and Rick Santorum each received 15 delegates. The result, despite Romney winning 41% of the primary vote compared with Santorum's 38%, came about because Michigan divides up delegates on a proportional basis.
The outcome muddies the race ahead of 10 key state contests next Tuesday.
A win in Michigan had been crucial for Romney, whose father was governor of the state. He had aimed to overcome the religious conservative Santorum by sticking to his core and mainstream Republican message of fixing the economy and reducing unemployment in a country still recovering from the worst recession in decades.
News that Santorum's narrow loss in Michigan would yield him as many delegates as the winner enabled him to label the result a success on Romney's home turf, putting some wind in his sails ahead of the big contests next week.
"We had a much better night in Michigan than maybe was first reported. This was a really great race to go into, in a sense, the belly of the beast, the hometown of my chief rival here in the Republican primary," Santorum said during a campaign stop in Tennessee.
The other two candidates in the race, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul, did not campaign in Michigan and got no delegates.
On Wednesday night Romney won his party's caucus in Wyoming, CNN reported, quoting the Wyoming Republican party as saying Romney emerged from a month-long series of county-level straw polls with 39% of the votes cast.
The TV network said former Santorum came in second with 33%, followed by Ron Paul with 20% and Newt Gingrich with 8%.
Romney is favoured by much of the Republican establishment and enjoys more campaign funds and better organisation than his primary rivals. But Santorum has electrified the party's conservative base, which trusts his views on social issues such as abortion and gay rights, and considers Romney too moderate and inconsistent.
Santorum remains on solid ground heading into Super Tuesday, when 419 delegates are up for grabs in 10 states. It could go a long way in determining who will win the state-by-state race for delegates that yields the party's nomination at its national convention in August.
Santorum is leading the polls in Ohio, possibly the most important contest on Super Tuesday. It is a big industrial state with 8.1% unemployment, 63 convention delegates at stake and a long history as a battleground in general election campaigns. Santorum also is keeping an eye on two other big prizes among the 10 Super Tuesday states: Oklahoma and Tennessee.
Romney is all but assured of victories in at least two of next Tuesday's states - Massachusetts, where he was governor and faces little or no competition in the primary, and Virginia, where neither former House speaker Newt Gingrich nor Santorum qualified for the ballot. Those two contests offer 84 delegates combined.
[h=1]Super Tuesday: Mitt Romney itching to seal the deal with crucial Ohio win[/h] Anxious to bring the race to an end, Romney has closed the gap in Ohio but Rick Santorum may still be hard to beat
Mitt Romney walks out of a production studio where he addressed Aipac by video-link in Hilliard, Ohio on Super Tuesday. Photograph: Michael Reynolds/EPA
Hundreds of thousands of Republicans were flocking to the polls on Super Tuesday, the biggest day of the presidential nomination race, with Mitt Romney hoping he will end the day having finally managed to break away from the pack.
Romney's campaign team, while anxious not to be seen as over-confident, are anticipating winning about half of the 10 states in play, including make-or-break Ohio.
Having been behind in the polls in Ohio, Romney has seen a surge in support over the last few days that has left him neck-and-neck with Rick Santorum, a pattern similar to last week's Michigan primary, which he eventually won after overcoming Santorum's double-digit poll lead.
Romney, who is to spend election night at his headquarters in Boston, is anxious to bring the race to an end to concentrate money and effort on the campaign against President Barack Obama in November.
Speaking in Ohio on the eve of polling, Romney expressed the hope he would win support in Ohio and other Super Tuesday states. "I believe if I do, I'll get the nomination. And then we can start organising our effort to make sure that we replace President Obama."
But Santorum's team is hoping that the demographics in Ohio, with its large working-class population and its closeness to his home state of Pennsylvania, will tip the balance in his favour. He is holding his election night rally in Steubenville, Ohio, close to the Pennsylvania border.
"I'm feeling good not just about Ohio, but about all of Super Tuesday," Santorum said. He had been outspent 12-1 in advertising in Ohio, he claimed. "To be this close is a remarkable thing."
If he pulls off a surprise win in Ohio, it will wreck Romney's hopes of an early end to a race that has been marked by intense infighting and may be damaging the party's chances in the White House race.
Former House speaker Newt Gingrich is well ahead in the polls in his home state, Georgia, and signalled today he is not planning to quit the race anytime soon. "Tuesday is going to be a mixed bag, and I think the race will go on," Gingrich told CNN. "There won't be any decisive winner Tuesday."
Gingrich, as evidence he intends to keep going, bought up advertising space for next week's contests in Mississippi and Alabama.
After months of crazy swings back and forth in the Republican race, even if Gingrich wins Georgia and Santorum Tennessee and Oklahoma, there could still be clarity at the end of the night, with Romney establishing a clear lead in the tally of delegates. There are 419 delegates at stake on Super Tuesday, and Romney expects to take at least half of them to add to the 203 he has accumulated so far. Santorum has 92, Gingrich 33 and Ron Paul, who has been campaigning in the smaller states Idaho, North Dakota and Alaska 25.
A candidate needs 1,144 delegates, half of those attending the Republican convention in Florida in August, to seal the nomination.
Santorum and Gingrich have been unable to match Romney in terms of money and organisation, running ramshackle outfits. As a result of poor organisation, neither Santorum nor Gingrich is on the ballot in Virginia, leaving just Romney and Paul to fight it out, and Santorum has already lost 18 of Ohio's 66 delegates through incompetent organisation.
Even as polling was under way in the Super Tuesday states, Romney's supporters, who have already been airing ads in Mississippi and Alabama before next week's contests, announced they are looking beyond next week and have bought ads for the contests after that, in Illinois and Louisiana.
JamiiForums uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Luke Sharrett for The New York Times
Slide Show 
Graphic 
Video 
Slide Show 
Toby Harnden @tobyharnden 
adam nagourney @adamnagourney 
The Guardian US @Edpilkington 
Sam Stein @samsteinhp 
Adam Gabbatt @AdamGabbatt 
Sam Youngman @samyoungman 
