Romney 'won by enough,' but is that all that matters?
February 29th, 2012
10:54 AM ET
3 years ago

Romney 'won by enough,' but is that all that matters?

Novi, Michigan (CNN) – As Mitt Romney admitted, they may not have been his prettiest wins.

"We didn't win by a lot - but we won by enough, and that's all that counts," he said Tuesday night after victories in the Michigan and Arizona primaries.

FULL STORY

Filed under: 2012 • Michigan • Mitt Romney
soundoff (24 Responses)
  1. Data Driven

    Romney should've beaten Santorum by 10 points in Michigan. Spin his victory last night all you like, but he's a weak candidate. Flat-out.

    Obama by no less than 6.

    February 29, 2012 11:14 am at 11:14 am |
  2. Jaded

    This guy is a venture capitalist (opportunistic vulture) and built his fortune on OPM (other people`s money) employed bt Bain Capital. He is NOT a roll model. -– He may even care about the less fortunate if they are in a position to further his goals and will not pose a threat in the future.

    February 29, 2012 11:17 am at 11:17 am |
  3. Al-NY,NY

    Sorry Flippity Flop but you couldn't be more wrong. You were expecting a home field advantage to take the vast majority of delegates but you failed miserably, barely scraping by. Spin it all you want but this was not a good result for you. And anyone screaming about crossover Democrats, Mittens got some of them too so keep quiet

    February 29, 2012 11:23 am at 11:23 am |
  4. Robjusayin

    Romneys #s would have had more than a10% lead over s Santorum if it weren't for the call to have Dems vote for Santorum in his home state. Even tho he still won the state with a 3pt lead.

    February 29, 2012 11:25 am at 11:25 am |
  5. texan

    Face it-- All the millions poured into Mitts` campaign still doesn`t make him appealing. --- You can just see the dislike in having to ask for the "little people`s vote".

    February 29, 2012 11:29 am at 11:29 am |
  6. Fair is Fair

    "Obama by no less than 6."
    ------–
    You cannot be serious. He won by 6 in 2008 against a weak candidate in a year when Charles Manson could have run as a democrat and won. Americans vote with their pocketbooks, and with the price of food and gas, and unemployment still over 8% (after we were promised that if we gave him a trillion bucks to blow on a "stimulus" it would not even hit 8%), there's nothing left. You can delude yourself all you want, but if you think Obama wins in a cake-walk, I've got a bridge for sale. Incompetence, thy name is Obama.

    February 29, 2012 11:30 am at 11:30 am |
  7. diridi

    No one in the right mind will ever vote for this guy. Don't they know how he shipped jobs to CHINA? Bain-Capital in simple terms. America may be blind, definitely not the World. Flip-Flop-Flip.....

    February 29, 2012 11:30 am at 11:30 am |
  8. GROVER NORQUIST IS A ENEMY OF THE STATE

    Keep telling that lie to yourself Willard. The President is going to wipe the floor with you in Michigan.

    February 29, 2012 11:31 am at 11:31 am |
  9. Woman In California

    Mormons won't be the only people voting in November where the president will overwhelmingly beat this lying scumbag.

    February 29, 2012 11:38 am at 11:38 am |
  10. dreamer96

    There are 7,290,595 total register voters in Michigan as of 2/26/2012.. from what I can find...10% are Democrats, 13% Liberals that leaves and 77% are GOP.. or 5,613,758 GOP registered Michigan voters with 95% of the votes counted in Michigan there were 909,690 votes cast for the four GOP candidates... And of that 10% were Democrats..90,969..and only 18% of them voted for Mitt Romney...

    Romney got 410,517 votes with 95% counted, out of 5,613,758 GOP registered voters.. far less then 10% of the GOP..
    That is a pretty sad turn out...
    There must be a lot of vomit on the streets and sidewalks and in cars...
    as the rest of the GOP voters just could not make it in to vote for any of the candidates.

    February 29, 2012 11:38 am at 11:38 am |
  11. B

    It is called winning by Default as the other candidates are the worst in history so Romney is the least terrible of the Worst!

    February 29, 2012 11:41 am at 11:41 am |
  12. Truth and Nothing But the Truth

    Data Driven - Romney should've beaten Santorum by 10 points in Michigan. Spin his victory last night all you like, but he's a weak candidate. Flat-out.
    ===========================================================================================
    Take out all the Democrats voting for Santorum and Romney won by 10%. That dumb robocall backfired on Santorum, as it should have.

    February 29, 2012 11:56 am at 11:56 am |
  13. knowndoyen

    Why is nobody saying he beat his record of 4 years ago? He had 338,316 votes in 2008 and in last nights election he has 410,523 so far. That is 72,000 more votes in the same home state. Romney won big. Santorum will continue to lose and the stuff he has done and said in the past two weeks will come back to haunt him. It is the MEDIA that needs to stop trying to tell Romney what he needs to do. He has already done what he needs to do and that is win.

    February 29, 2012 12:14 pm at 12:14 pm |
  14. Sniffit

    "Take out all the Democrats voting for Santorum and Romney won by 10%."

    Given that turnout was low, if you factor in 6-7% of turnout being Demcorats voting for Santorum as you just did, it makes the GOP/Teatrolls problem with "enthusiasm" look even bigger. Fact is, Mittens IS an enthusiam problem for the GOP/Teatrolls and THAT is the entire point. There's a reason "Anyone But Mittens" keep getting found and resurrected and it doesn't bode well for Captain One-Percent.

    February 29, 2012 12:15 pm at 12:15 pm |
  15. Tom in the Great NW

    Well Mitt, the trees here in the NW are just the right height; the lakes here are both big and small; and most of us here do not HAVE TWO CADILLACS !!
    .
    SO MITT, ARE YOU GOING TO THANK THE PRESIDENT FOR THE 13,000 DOW PERFORMANCE ?
    ARE YOU GOING TO THANK HIM FOR HELPING MICHIGAN STAY WELL ABOVE WATER ?
    ARE YOU GOING TO THANK HIM FOR PULLING THE US ECONOMY OUT OF THE DEEPEST PART OF THE OCEAN WHERE CHENEY-ROVE-DUBYA AND YOUR PARTY SENT IT ?
    .
    MITT IS NOT OUT OF TOUCH -----– HE SIMPLY HAS NO ISSUES WITH WHICH TO CHALLENGE THE PRESIDENT !!

    February 29, 2012 12:15 pm at 12:15 pm |
  16. Marie MD

    Again, no president can do anything about OPEC and frankly I think this hike in gasoline price is all about the exxons and shells of then world.
    There is absolutely no reason for the price hike. The economy is feting better, so is the housing market, healthcare reform is already helping families, even if not all in place for a couple more years, we are not going to stand to have little hitler telling us what to do with our bodies/lives so all the corporationpeopld have left is gasoline price hikes.

    February 29, 2012 12:17 pm at 12:17 pm |
  17. Lynda/Minnesota

    "And, just as in other states so far, Romney's vote total Tuesday night appears to have declined from his 2008 haul, on his way to an even narrower victory in a state where he had a years-long organizational head start and a 2-to-1 spending advantage over his closest competitor."

    Romney is his own worst enemy. It's doubtful he'll be getting the dedicated support needed to win in the General regardless of how long this travesty plays out. Dude's been running for President forever and he still can't get everyday Americans to support him. Not looking good for him no matter how he spins it.

    Obama/Biden 2012

    February 29, 2012 12:23 pm at 12:23 pm |
  18. Fair is Fair

    Marie MD

    Again, no president can do anything about OPEC and frankly I think this hike in gasoline price is all about the exxons and shells of then world.
    -------–
    Were you HONESTLY saying the same thing in 2008's runup in prices? It's funny, but I recall the trolls in here blaming Bush... but now Obama's in office and they blame OPEC. Really? Really???

    February 29, 2012 12:25 pm at 12:25 pm |
  19. Anonymous

    "from what I can find...10% are Democrats,"

    Check your sources, those numbers are way off and way wrong.

    February 29, 2012 12:32 pm at 12:32 pm |
  20. Rudy NYC

    Fair is Fair wrote:

    Were you HONESTLY saying the same thing in 2008's runup in prices? It's funny, but I recall the trolls in here blaming Bush... but now Obama's in office and they blame OPEC. Really? Really???
    ----------------
    Liberals and moderates attributed OPEC for the 2008 run up in prices, just as they always have. But, liberals and moderates were blaming Bush for getting on OPEC's bad side because of the Iraqi War, especially The Surge which was killing civilians on a too regular basis.

    Besides, Bush brought any blame for high oil and gas prices on himself. Remember that trip he made to Saudi Arabia to ask them turn up the production valve, because OPEC had slowed their overall production? He visited the ruling family, sat down for a dinner and talks, and then they sent him on his merry way.

    February 29, 2012 12:33 pm at 12:33 pm |
  21. Anonymous

    "Why is nobody saying he beat his record of 4 years ago? He had 338,316 votes in 2008 and in last nights election he has 410,523 so far."

    Where did you find those numbers. The press is doing a horrible job of reporting on turnout. However, the only article I found that mentioned turnout said it was lower this year than last and that Rmoney got fewer votes this year than in 2008.

    February 29, 2012 12:34 pm at 12:34 pm |
  22. Sniffit

    "Why is nobody saying he beat his record of 4 years ago? He had 338,316 votes in 2008 and in last nights election he has 410,523 so far.'

    Because you've got the numbers wrong an d are therefore wrong about him getting more votes than in 2008. Read the article. Not only was overall turnout lower this time around, but Mittens' vote total was lower. Says it right there.

    February 29, 2012 12:35 pm at 12:35 pm |
  23. Barney

    Ron Paul is the only candidate that has a chance to beat Obama because independents like him. He's dedicated to the Constitution and to putting American's national security at the forefront. No, that doesn't mean spending more on wars...quite the opposite. He wants to bring troops home, save the money on overhead, use those funds to shore up our infrastructure and create jobs and revenue through competition in the energy sector. We have enough bombs to blow the world up 6 times. Let's focus on the people of the United States for once, and stop being a fear-based decision making country.

    February 29, 2012 12:36 pm at 12:36 pm |
  24. The Greedy Old PIgs declared class war on US!

    "Were you HONESTLY saying the same thing in 2008's runup in prices? It's funny, but I recall the trolls in here blaming Bush... but now Obama's in office and they blame OPEC. Really? Really???"

    You really missed the "compare and contrast" lessons in school, didn't you? The difference is this: in 2008, oil speculators were driving gas prices sky high. Bush did not want to regulate them, so he got blamed. Fast forward to 2012 and oil speculators are once again driving gas prices sky high. The difference is that President Obama wants restrictions on such speculation and your GOBP deathcult does not. See now why they get the blame and not the President?

    February 29, 2012 12:36 pm at 12:36 pm |