Politics 2012: The GOP Nominating Race

Ok, I am going to try something. It may be a bad idea, but I have faith in our community.

I want to see if we can talk about the Presidential race without getting into discussions of policy and who we like/hate and the such. We are just going to have an analytical and factual discussion about the GOP field. No passions, no ideological debates, no insults. Maybe we can do it, maybe we can't. I am hoping this will largely be a discussion place for polls and stuff like that.

Please know that I will be looking closely at this thread. If you get into an ideological debate, you are probably going to get dinged. Please prove me right in thinking we can handle this.

I'll start the discussion with the following --

I am shocked at the latest Intrade odds of winning the GOP nomination. Intrade still has Romney as the huge GOP favorite despite Gingrich's surge. Here are the odds--

Romney - 59.0%
Gingrich - 17.9%
Ron Paul - 7.5%
Huntsman - 7.5%
Perry - 3.4%
Bachman - 1.7%
Santorum - 0.7%

I know Romney has been the most logical choice for a loooong time but many polls now show him running 3rd in Iowa, well behind Gingrich and slightly behind Paul. His once big lead in New Hampshire has been whittled to single-digits in most polls, and we know there will be an Iowa bounce for the winner there. Nationally, among all GOP voters, he is trailing Gingrich by about 10 points. What's more, the races right after New Hampshire, Florida and South Carolina, both seem to greatly favor Gingrich.

I am seriously considering putting some money down on Gingrich as I think his odds of taking the nomination are muuuuch higher than 1-in-5 and his Intrade stock will bounce into at least the 30s if he wins Iowa.

-Jason "and now I hit submit new thread and HOPE that we can keep this very civil" Evans

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JasonEvans

I want to see if we can talk about the Presidential race without getting into discussions of policy and who we like/hate and the such.

---

I find that unlikely on this board, heehee. ;) But anything is possible. I agree that those intrade odds seem ridiculous to me - hard to believe Romney is such a favorite based on the recent poll numbers that have Gingrich way ahead nationally. Do you think the Republican National Committee's decision to proportionally award delegates this primary season (first time they've done that, I believe) will have an effect on the election at all? I would think it could make the primary season a lot longer as even if Romney, for example, comes in second place in the first four states, as long as he's relatively close percentage-wise, he can make it up in future states. The momentum isn't as severe as it used to be in a "winner takes all" setup. I mean, the Democratic primary process in 2008 was like that (delegates proportionally awarded) and caused the Clinton/Obama battle to go on a lot longer than McCain. (Obviously, other factors could have been at play as well.) So, perhaps this benefits a candidate who has a more established campaign on the ground and more $$$ to spend in various states.

I've heard that Romney has a more established campaign staff and money to spend (although I think Gingrich is picking up more donations as his poll numbers have improved, but he apparently has a tiny office in Iowa), so perhaps a more drawn out process favors Romney. I'm just speculating though. Incidentally, if the Democratic National Committee had the same rules the Republicans did in 2008, Hillary would have likely gotten the nomination, right? She won the large populous states like NY and California, but again, was awarded delegates proportionally based on the percentage of votes.

Blue "I am not a politics expert, so be kind" dog
(yes, stealing Jason's signature item for this post only)

I agree that it is quite surprising that Romney is shown as such a favorite - I would expect him to be ahead, but not by nearly that much. Some of this reflects his "electability" amongst the general voter community - the politics that will win the republican nomination are likely much different than what will win the White House, and it will be up to the Republican voters to evaluate this. Also, I think these numbers might show foresight into the many skeletons in Gingrich's closet that will emerge more vividly as the process continues - The New Yorker (admittedly with a very liberal slant) discusses some of these:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/commen...talk_hertzberg

On a cable news show I was watching this morning it was mentioned that in the last 52 years, only once has the GOP not nominated the individual who appeared "next in line" for the nomination. The Intrade odds may reflect that history to an extent, as Romney is certainly the next in line. It does seem like the Intrade odds disproportionately favor Romney, though. I'd put it at more like about 55% Romney, 45% Gingrich, with no one else really having a significant chance.

How up-to-date are the Intrade odds? Maybe they don't fully reflect Newt's recent rise yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JasonEvans

Ok, I am going to try something. It may be a bad idea, but I have faith in our community.

I want to see if we can talk about the Presidential race without getting into discussions of policy and who we like/hate and the such. We are just going to have an analytical and factual discussion about the GOP field. No passions, no ideological debates, no insults. Maybe we can do it, maybe we can't. I am hoping this will largely be a discussion place for polls and stuff like that.

Please know that I will be looking closely at this thread. If you get into an ideological debate, you are probably going to get dinged. Please prove me right in thinking we can handle this.

I'll start the discussion with the following --

I am shocked at the latest Intrade odds of winning the GOP nomination. Intrade still has Romney as the huge GOP favorite despite Gingrich's surge. Here are the odds--

Romney - 59.0%
Gingrich - 17.9%
Ron Paul - 7.5%
Huntsman - 7.5%
Perry - 3.4%
Bachman - 1.7%
Santorum - 0.7%

I know Romney has been the most logical choice for a loooong time but many polls now show him running 3rd in Iowa, well behind Gingrich and slightly behind Paul. His once big lead in New Hampshire has been whittled to single-digits in most polls, and we know there will be an Iowa bounce for the winner there. Nationally, among all GOP voters, he is trailing Gingrich by about 10 points. What's more, the races right after New Hampshire, Florida and South Carolina, both seem to greatly favor Gingrich.

I am seriously considering putting some money down on Gingrich as I think his odds of taking the nomination are muuuuch higher than 1-in-5 and his Intrade stock will bounce into at least the 30s if he wins Iowa.

-Jason "and now I hit submit new thread and HOPE that we can keep this very civil" Evans

---

You are a brave, brave soul. Good luck. In fact, I almost hit feldspar's pea whistle icon instead of submit message when I saw the title of the thread (jk). I likewise find that large a gap to be rather difficult to fathom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JasonEvans

Ok, I am going to try something. It may be a bad idea, but I have faith in our community.

I want to see if we can talk about the Presidential race without getting into discussions of policy and who we like/hate and the such. We are just going to have an analytical and factual discussion about the GOP field. No passions, no ideological debates, no insults. Maybe we can do it, maybe we can't. I am hoping this will largely be a discussion place for polls and stuff like that.

Please know that I will be looking closely at this thread. If you get into an ideological debate, you are probably going to get dinged. Please prove me right in thinking we can handle this.

I'll start the discussion with the following --

I am shocked at the latest Intrade odds of winning the GOP nomination. Intrade still has Romney as the huge GOP favorite despite Gingrich's surge. Here are the odds--

Romney - 59.0%
Gingrich - 17.9%
Ron Paul - 7.5%
Huntsman - 7.5%
Perry - 3.4%
Bachman - 1.7%
Santorum - 0.7%

I know Romney has been the most logical choice for a loooong time but many polls now show him running 3rd in Iowa, well behind Gingrich and slightly behind Paul. His once big lead in New Hampshire has been whittled to single-digits in most polls, and we know there will be an Iowa bounce for the winner there. Nationally, among all GOP voters, he is trailing Gingrich by about 10 points. What's more, the races right after New Hampshire, Florida and South Carolina, both seem to greatly favor Gingrich.

I am seriously considering putting some money down on Gingrich as I think his odds of taking the nomination are muuuuch higher than 1-in-5 and his Intrade stock will bounce into at least the 30s if he wins Iowa.

-Jason "and now I hit submit new thread and HOPE that we can keep this very civil" Evans

---

This should be fun. What's the over/under on how many posts are deleted or how many days before the thread is locked.:D And why am I not surprised Jason started this thread based on the betting odds.

If the Republican primaries were winner take all, as in the past, instead of proportional I would agree, but then the odds would be different. I do not believe Newt has or will have the organization and the money to go the distance. Romney already does. As a consequence, Romney will be well positioned to fight for delegates after the Florida primary which is where Newt hopes to deliver a fatal blow.

And of course there is all the Gingrich baggage and Newt's proclivity for self destruction.

I don't know how Intrade works. Does the bet stay on until the results are final, or like an option, can you sell for a profit when you are in the money? If it's the latter, I think its a good bet because the odds don't reflect Newt's near term momentum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke4Ever32

On a cable news show I was watching this morning it was mentioned that in the last 52 years, only once has the GOP not nominated the individual who appeared "next in line" for the nomination.

---

Who was that? Goldwater?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 77devil

This should be fun. What's the over/under on how many posts are deleted or how many days before the thread is locked.:D And why am I not surprised Jason started this thread based on the betting odds.

If the Republican primaries were winner take all, as in the past, instead of proportional I would agree, but then the odds would be different. I do not believe Newt has or will have the organization and the money to go the distance. Romney already does.

---

Newt narrowing the money gap?

On Facebook this morning I linked the CNN piece about "Gingrich under fire". http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...re/?hpt=hp_bn3

Here were my own thoughts that I added to the link. (Other than recognizing myself as a Democrat, I don't feel they are too partisan...in fact I loathe politics right now because it has turned into one giant blame-game that I don't feel like being part of.)

The other Republican candidates have to be hating Newt's resurgance. There is nothing that they can dig up on Gingrich that we don't know about, and even if they do, after being so used to his low ethics, the voters no longer will care. I mean they'll have to basically find that he mugged a baby with a baseball bat to do any damage to him. As a Democrat, I love Newt, he's the best hope Obama has. Voters will look past his ethical lapses, but I'm hoping in the general election they will realize he's just too flat out insane to elect as our president.

Good luck on keep this thread from going too PPB, it will be fun to follow if it survives.

The main difference is Romney has a ton of establishment support and endorsements. The republican establishment doesn't like Gingrich.

And though I'm sure you already know this, candidates have different strategies for different states. At the extreme ends, Santorum and Huntsman are putting all their eggs into one basket - Iowa and New Hampshire, respectively. Similarly, Romney isn't really trying that hard in Iowa, so I wouldn't find it too worrisome that he's only in 3rd place there.

Romney's strategy in staying "above the fray" has worked so far, as he's seen Bachmann, Perry, and Cain all rise as supposed-challengers and then fall. The Intrade odds may reflect an assumption that Gingrich's jump is likely to be similarly temporary. I'm not sure if that's wise - Gingrich is the only guy who consistently gets both establishment republicans and tea partiers - but Romney might be hesitant to abandon a strategy that has been successful for him in the past few months.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke4Ever32

I'd put it at more like about 55% Romney, 45% Gingrich, with no one else really having a significant chance.

---

Not too long ago, it seemed like it was 55% Romney, 45% Perry. Now Perry is at less than 5%. I don't think it's too much of an oversimplification to say that his sudden drop was completely caused by poor performance in about three debates. There are approximately 5 million debates left in the primary campaign season. Lots can happen...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wander

but Romney might be hesitant to abandon a strategy that has been successful for him in the past few months.

---

Some folks on NPR were discussing this yesterday. They were postulating that now that he is no longer the front runner, Romney needs to attack more. Essentially he has been able to let his challengers beat each other up and come out looking like the good guy, but now that he is running behind or even with Gingrich they suggest he do some fighting to put himself back on top. It will be interesting to see how and if his strategy changes. When Herman Cain jumped to the top of the polls, he was taken down within a week by his own past indiscressions, but since that's not going to happen with Newt he'll need some real policy challenges to bring him down. Gingrich is incredibly smart; even though I don't support him it is fascinating to watch him quickly brush aside others with his quick thinking and ideas. Like Cain, Gingrich does an excellent job of presenting his ideas as "great solutions that for some reason nobody else has thought of", and that's something that Romney (and the others) are now going to have to do as well, to suggest their ideas are more original and better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred

and that's something that Romney (and the others) are now going to have to do as well, to suggest their ideas are more original and better.

---

By the way, I'm sure they all think their ideas are original, but for whatever reason both Cain and Gingrich made theirs stand out.

Two of my friends in Austin are high up on democratic politician staff. One a US Congressman, other a state senator. I was at a wedding in August asking them what they thought about Perry's chances. Me? I was scared to death. Dude has never lost an election. Ever. They both were PRAYING he'd win the nomination, but said GOP would never allow it. Didn't make sense to me at the time, but in retrospect they knew what they were talking about.

Well, they are saying similar, although not so absolute, things about Newt. I think there is a feeling that the band of moderates who are undecided and those that only vote if it's AGAINST someone they don't like (not an insignificant number) moves in the left's favor if Newt is the nominee, whereby the Republican base will still vote for Romney even if the far right wing does so holding its nose.

Anyway, the gaming is interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duvall

Newt narrowing the money gap?

---

So he is, but this editorial from the National Review won't help. And Newt's organization across the states is still thin.

"At the moment we think it important to urge Republicans to have the good sense to reject a hasty marriage to Gingrich, which would risk dissolving in acrimony."

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...d-editors?pg=1

Newt has slipped in the polls this week as other candidates have started to go negative on him. There's some blood in the water. Expect the sharks to attack in tonight's GOP debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A-Tex Devil

Well, they are saying similar, although not so absolute, things about Newt. I think there is a feeling that the band of moderates who are undecided and those that only vote if it's AGAINST someone they don't like (not an insignificant number) moves in the left's favor if Newt is the nominee, whereby the Republican base will still vote for Romney even if the far right wing does so holding its nose.

---

Oh, yeah, there's no question about that. In terms of who actually has the best chance to beat Obama in a general election, it probably goes like this (from best to worst):

Huntsman, Romney, Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, Santorum

I'm not really sure where to place Ron Paul. But there's no question that Romney stands a better chance in the general than Gingrich.

Awhile ago I would have jumped at the opportunity to take political swings at the politicians with whom I disagree. Not now, though. I've mourned the death of the PPB, but I have also been weaned from it. The process is my problem, and it has been for a number of years. Why do we have to have so much vitriol in our political campaigns? And why, for heaven's sake, do they have to take so long? Same thing applies for congressional elections. It takes so long because these people who want us to vote for them will focus on reelection almost as soon as they get elected. Maybe a constitutional convention is needed to correct this process. Now, assuming that this thread survives another few days, will someone remind me how to remove it from my forum list? Good try, Jason, but I am getting too old for this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by throatybeard

Who was that? Goldwater?

---

That would be my answer.

Interesting struggle between the party leaders (tepid backers of Romney) and the engergized/enraged rank-and-file (Gingrich) and a dedicated insurgent faction (Ron Paul).

They changed the rules IIRC for the early states to make them proportionate delegates as opposed to winner take all. Which may mean this drags past Florida.

Fun for us political junkies.

Beacuse it is a caucus and not a primary, the Iowa results can be skewed by organization and passion.

In other words, the outcome can be misleading.

Since 1976, the eventual Republican nominee has won six of the nine Iowa caucuses -- George H. Bush beat Reagan 32-30 percent in 1980' Bob Dole led the pack with 37 percent in 1988 ... folowed by Pat Roberson at 25 percent and George H. Bush (the eventual nominee) at 19 percent. Four years ago, Mike Huckabee won the caucus with 34 percent of the vote. Mitt Romney was second at 25 percent and Fred Thompson third. He barely edged out eventual nominee John McCain, who got just 13 percent of the vote.

To me (as a Democrat) it's interesting to watch, but I won't get too carried away by the outcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldPhiKap

[Goldwater] would be my answer.

---

My guess was because I was supposing Rockefeller was the "next in line." I may be wrong about that. But I couldn't think of a better R example since 1960.