Caucuses are different than primaries, and winner-take-all primaries are how Mitt Romney eventually took over Newt Gingrich in 2012 and why Rick Santorum left.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
There is a reality to the primary process, and you don't win primaries by being ahead in national polls. You win them by winning Iowa, by winning New Hampshire, by winning South Carolina, winning Florida.
On the national security front, Rick Santorum is superior to any candidate I know.
The 2012 presidential campaign's turn away from the classic, straight-up, American election - where the candidate who gets the most votes nationwide wins - is another sad reminder of the extreme political polarization distorting today's politics. No one talks about a 50-state strategy for winning the presidency these days.
Arlen Specter left the GOP because it is a lot easier to win in Pennsylvania as a Democrat than as a Republican. It is that simple. For folks on the Right to brush this off as some sort of 'good purge' is extremely naive.
I have made it my practice to not get involved in primaries because picking the Republican candidate is the voters' job.
I have never understood the Iowa caucus.
In the end, that's what it comes down to with Mitt Romney. He's running as the non-Barack Obama.
Had I stayed longer in some primaries, I would have probably done better in states like Nevada, California, and New Mexico - but I ran out of the money after the second primary in New Hampshire.
Candidates are making lasting impressions on voters, not just primary voters, in how they campaign.
I think the trend to move towards caucuses and conventions, whether to nominate senators, governors or presidential nominees, I think the move towards caucuses and conventions is a very bad one, and that our party should reward those states that spend the time and money to have primaries.