Newt pledged not to go negative, but in the same breath he "reserved the right to tell the truth" about the "Massachusetts Moderate." Newt speaks in incendiary tones whether he means to or not, it's just his style/nature. His biggest problem is that, without a lot of surrogates, he does not have anyone to do the dirty work at arms length. I cannot imagine after getting "Romney-boated" (Newt's term) in Iowa that Newt will play nice. It was an experiment (again, his word) that failed.
So, I would like to think it will be different this time but you're never disappointed if you expect the worst.
Agree on the religion, although Santorum and Gingrich are both Catholic. As a Catholic living in the South, I can tell you that many don't view us as Christians either. Perry has been the only one whose supporters have openly questioned Mitt's religion, and it looks like Perry may not stick around long enough to do it. But there are not a lot of LDS tabernacles down here either, so I am afraid you are correct that such an attack will come.
Eat Mor Jonny.
http://www.witn.com/home/headlines/A...136655473.htmlRepublican presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann is canceling her campaign trip to South Carolina after a dismal showing in the Iowa caucuses.
Campaign manager Keith Nahigan tells The Associated Press that the Minnesota congresswoman plans a news conference in Iowa later Wednesday morning. Nahigan would not say whether Bachmann intends to drop out.
And thus an alliance emerges:
Ingraham: Can you see a scenario under which the two of you would align together to try to defeat the establishment candidate, Mitt Romney?
Gingrich: Absolutely. Of course. I mean Rick and I have a 20-year friendship, we are both rebels, we both came into this business as reformers, we both dislike deeply the degree to which the establishment sells out the American people. We both think Washington has to be changed in very fundamental ways, and we have lots of things that fit together. And the thing that's interesting is if you take the votes, you add to that Perry and Bachmann, you begin to see the size of the conservative vote compared to Romney...if you take, you know, Santorum and Perry and Bachmann and Gingrich you get some sense of what a small minority Romney really represents.
(Source, Andrew Sullivan but without further sourcing as best I can tell. Not sure who "Ingraham" is).
Eat Mor Jonny.
Yeah, odd quote from Newt considering how much money he made on K Street after leaving office (" . . . the establishment that sells out the American people"). But it sounds like the two candidates may have made a pact to take down Romney and cease fire between themselves. Or, Newt is signalling that desire in the hopes that Santorum will act likewise. I had never heard Newt describe this great friendship until last night although I will admit I do not spend a lot of time listening to him.
Santorum-Gingrich ticket? Or President Santorum giving Gingrich a plum appointment? At winnowing time, it's time to start seeing what deals are available.
Eat Mor Jonny.
And I wouldn't say that Romney made a better showing this time around. I was looking at some voter demographics from last night, and not only did Romney get almost the exact same % of the vote, but the demographics of those who voted for him were almost exactly the same as they were four years ago. It's kind of like the same people who voted for him four years ago came out again last night and did the same thing. Didn't lose anybody, didn't gain anybody. It's just that the competition was weaker, and more splintered, so he finished at the top rather than the 9 points behind Huckabee that he finished.
By the way, McCain, the ultimate nominee, finished fourth last time in Iowa.
Perry says he's pressing on to South Carolina. (I assume he plans to participate in the debate Saturday too).
Eat Mor Jonny.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...709/?hpt=hp_t2"And the next leg of the marathon is the Palmetto State...Here we come South Carolina!!!" Perry said on Twitter on Wednesday morning.
I am truly surprised by Perry's tweet that he is going to SC after seeing his speech last night about heading home to Texas for a walk in the woods.
Never a dull moment.
Edit to add: answered the question myself, he does plan to participate. Will be interesting to see who he targets.
Quote from his SC Chairman:
South Carolina campaign chairman Katon Dawson told NBC News, "Iowa picks corn, New Hampshire picks campaigns' pockets, and South Carolina picks Republican presidents and we are ready to rumble."
Last edited by OldPhiKap; 01-04-2012 at 01:39 PM.
Eat Mor Jonny.
It will take a couple days to see how the results last night impact the New Hampshire race. There are some political watchers out there who think that once Ron Paul gets on the ground and really engaging with NH voters, he will connect nicely with them. They seems to share an independent streak and many of Paul's messages about what government should and should not do have been winning ideas with NH voters in the past.
Now, I don't for a minute expect Paul to beat Romney in NH, but the margin is currently Romney by about 20-25 points (Romney in mid-40s, Paul in upper teens- low 20s). I think that by election day that margin may be down to 10 or so points. I am not sure how much more upside Romney has in NH beyond his current polling numbers. He is well-known in the state and he been there a loooong time campaigning already. As folks like Perry and Bachman drop out, I have a hard time seeing their supporters going to Romney.
I won't be surprised if Newt joins Perry in just moving all into South Carolina and all but ignoring New Hampshire. That might result in Santorum or perhaps Paul or even Huntsman getting a surge of support in New Hampshire.
The real question in the GOP race is whether Romney has a ceiling and if that ceiling is well below 50%. As more and more pretenders drop out, the "anti-Romney" vote becomes consolidated into one or maybe two candidates, not the 5-way split we currently see. Can Mitt win a 1-on-1 or 1-on-2 race, that is the question right now.
-Jason "I am not ready to call this thing for Mitt... not yet... if only because I am enjoying watching the mild chaos going on" Evans
Well, the caucusing in the caucausus has been completed, and I think the winner was . . . Barack Obama.
None of the GOP candidates really either exceeded or fell short of expectations
last night. But Romney now appears to have a more difficult road than he would
have had he shown stronger, or Santorum weaker. Yes, Santorum is still to be
"vetted" like the other flavors of the month were. But unless Romney was to
have swept Iowa and clinched this thing right out of the gate, which he didn't
do obviously, it seems to me that the more candidates that drop out after Iowa
and certainly after New Hampshire, the worse it is for Romney. He wants that
super-conservative vote to be split, rather than consolidate behind one
candidate like Santorum. He wants Huntsman in, so he, Romney, seems less
moderate by comparison.
So Bachman is out and Perry is for all intents and purposes out. Huntsman's
numbers are still pretty weak in New Hampshire, which is do or die for him.
With Santorum and Gingrich both continuing, this forces Romney to continue to
try to pretend he's a real conservative, and forces him to take ever more
extreme positions to "keep up" with what guys like Santorum are saying on the
far right. This is not good for Romney down the road, as everybody sees right
through what he's trying to do. This explains why his 25% in Iowa is the same
as he got four years ago, and it came from almost exactly the same demographic.
The same people who voted for him in 2008 voted for him again, because they
thought he could win, not because they actually liked him. That does not bode
It is also not good for Romney in South Carolina. The Mormon thing is going to
be big there, as is the fact that he's not perceived as a true conservative.
Gingrich will be making his big stand there. Being from neighboring Georgia and, as another poster pointed out, the only one of the three who is a Christian (Santorum is a Catholic, which a
lot of good ole boys think is non-Christian), Gingrich may make things very
uncomfortable for Romney there, especially if he pulls out of New Hampshire (as
he should) and saves all his ammo for South Carolina. If he does OK there, he
can hang in for Florida, which is the big kahuna and also neighbors Georgia.
So I say it was a good result for Obama because, while the presumption that
Romney will be the ultimate nominee still stands, he's going to have to fight
longer, with more resources, in tougher terrain than he would've liked, and is
going to have to move even further to his right in order to ensure he wins.
Santorum doesn't have the money or organization to win, and Gingrich doesn't
have the personality or temperament or the ability to survive close scrutiny of
his background, and neither of course does Paul -- who I agree is going to jump
up in New Hampshire, by the way -- so ultimately I think Romney will win it, but
he'll be a weaker general election candidate than he could've been with
different results last night.
Let me just quickly throw a counter-argument to tommy's excellent analysis.
Is it really all that bad for Romney to be in a somewhat long battle for the nomination? After all, it keeps attention on him for longer than if he wrapped things up early. It allows him to get plenty of media attention while actively campaigning in multiple states/regions across the country. This is not a sitting Senator who already has an extensive national profile. My bet is that there are a lot of Americans who will vote in the fall who have very little idea who Mitt Romney is other than "that guy who ran but lost 4 years ago." Plus, much like Barak Obama in 2008, the continued media attention and rigors of a long campaign can help a candidate hone their message and their campaign style.
I am not so sure that a long campaign does not help Romney.
-Jason "now, if there is so much party division that it makes for an awkward convention or disenchanted members of the base, that is a different story" Evans
The biggest thing to happen in the campaign today is that Perry has decided to stick around through South Carolina. Many pundits think this is a huge break for Romney as it continues to fracture the anti-Romney voting block. You have to think that at least 4 out of every 5 Perry voters in SC will be folks who would have otherwise likely voted for Santorum or perhaps Gingrich. If Perry gets even 5 or 10% in South Carolina (and he might do even better than that), then it is a major boost to Romney.
-Jason "I'm rooting for Gingrich and Santorum to finish 1/2 in SC with Romney in 3rd-- that would extend this thing at least through Super Tuesday" Evans
Is anyone else just a little surprised O didn't have to endure a primary challenge? (R 1992, D 1980, D 1968).
A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it.
Some questions cannot be answered
Who’s gonna bury who
We need a love like Johnny, Johnny and June
---Over the Rhine