Eh, maybe with Perry, who has campaign resources. But Bachmann and especially Santorum have thrown so many eggs into their Iowa basket - as with Huntsman in New Hampshire - they need a good showing. If the top three are Romney, Paul, and Gingrich in any order, I think you'll definitely see Santorum quit and perhaps Bachmann as well.
Firstly, I'm duly impressed by all of you to get this thread to 4 pages and counting. I find it incredibly difficult to post to this without quickly careening into PPBland. So I'll try to keep it short and then get out (as generally, I'm in agreement with captmojo that race handicapping is far less interesting to me than the underlying politics, and I also really regret that it's where the media spends 90% of its time and brain power):
Gingrich is now falling swiftly, which surprised me a bit. It appears to be Bachmann and Paul splitting the falling out. This would appear to me to be because Newt, unlike the other meteors in this race (Cain, Perry, Trump), has/had the ability, at least on the surface, to appeal to both the libertarian and the Tea Party wings. He's energetic and fiery enough for the far right, and he can speak in a way that makes libertarians not totally afraid of him. Contrast with Perry's turn at the front. Now that the GOP establishment has turned its guns on Gingrich (and he's apparently turned his guns on himself with his comments re: the Supreme Court), it looks like some of the support for him was coming from both camps. Perhaps that was what made him feel different, and like a potential real challenge to Romney.
Whether or not Huntsman actually gets a turn in the sun at some point, as the next chosen "Please let us have someone other than Mitt to nominate" frontrunner, will be the indication re: whether or not the party has the ability right now to get sufficiently energized behind Romney to give the general election a chance to be interesting (barring economic breakdown or other large external circumstances). Given that (i) Huntsman's hard to distinguish from Romney as an establishment-type, unlike all the other come-and-go favorites over the last few months, and (ii) the Tea Party absolutely loathes him due to his ambassadorship to China, I think if he surges in the polls at some point, it means one of two things. Either the right wing actually hates Romney more than it appears to hate Huntsman, in which case they're not coming out strong in the general, or it means the establishment has decided he's more electable than Romney and is making a concerted effort to exert its will regardless of what the right wing wants. Which also means the base is not coming out strong in the general, and there's a civil war going on in the party.
Man, even that was hard to say without throwing in my own feelings and judgments! Missing the PPB, but agreed with others that it's not an altogether bad thing it's gone. I'd better get back to some real political boards where I can speak my mind on what I really think of this primary season.
Gingrich is an interesting and unique case. On the one hand, he will always have substantial cred within GOP circles for having masterminded and presided over the party taking control of the House for the first time in over a generation. For many, the fact that Newt ultimately crashed and burned as Speaker is less important than his central role in leading them to the promised land (which they have held for all but 2 of the 17 years since).
On the other hand, the opposition of the party "establishment" in general has undoubtedly been amplified by the number of people who worked with or for Newt coming out and vocally pronouncing him unfit to lead the country. I am not sure how much of the GOP (or independent) electorate has been paying attention to this specifically, but ideology aside, it is hard to imagine more damning statements being made about a candidate. Then, of course, there are Newt's own, well-chronicled tendencies to overreach and self-destruct, which we may be witnessing now.
Trump will never run. He will never be willing to submit detailed financial information for scrutiny, because it will expose him as significantly less wealthy and successful than he purports to be. Most people who are familiar with his business dealings as a real estate developer and casino operator take this as an article of faith, and many consider him to be an outright fraud.
But you are correct in saying that the Donald will likely continue to tease the public about a bid as a means of self-promotion. He is, after all, much more successful these days as a media personality than as a businessman.
Gary Johnson has announced that he is dropping out of the GOP field and running as a Libertarian. I only recall Johnson being invited to two debates. More importantly for the frontrunners, though, this may take away an obvious option for Ron Paul to run as a third party candidate (not the only one, obviously, but the Libertarians are already on the ballot of every state I assume and is a brand associated with RP).
If Paul wants to drop out of the GOP and run as a Libertarian, I doubt Johnson would stand in his way. Paul has run as a Libertarian before, in 1988, and I am sure the party would welcome him back with open arms as I think Paul would get at least 3-5% of the vote nationwide, far more than the Libertarian party usually does (generally in the half a percent range).
I think Paul legitimately has his eye on something more than the Libertarian banner this time around. He is likely to control a large number of delegates at the GOP convention (probably around 15% of them, if he sticks around a long time in the nominating process) and will be able to shape the party's platform and message as a result.
-Jason "Paul is a player" Evans
Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?
Paul is going to be fun to watch after Iowa. Right now, he's leading in the polls..which of course does not equate to a caucus victory but he'll be up there. After Iowa, he's going to face a different crowd of voters. In SC, the first of the red southern states, he's pulling in low poll numbers, and nationally he's behind Romney and Gingrich by over half. However, if he wins Iowa and wakes some people up who may be looking for someone that is not a Mormon or a philanderer, then he might start surprising people.
"What he could do is turn a victory in Iowa into a heart attack for the Republican establishment. They see him as someone they really can't relate to very much," said Tobe Berkowitz, a communications professor at Boston University.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7BK0PE20111221"He's a libertarian Republican. Will that play in South Carolina, Georgia and elsewhere? The fact that he's a libertarian throws a lot of monkey-wrenches into Republican orthodoxy," Berkowitz said.
(I don't care about religious affiliation or how many women you sleep with, so nobody jump on me for my above statement.)
Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."
Excellent post and observation. RP doesn't need a lot of money, so he can live off the land and take this all the way through if he wants. A few e-fundraiser-bombs like he does, and he can keep it going.
As to CB&B's (also exellent) post -- living in "Georgia-lina" as they call it here, these states are not particularly known for being libertarian. RP's views on Iran will probably not help, and the whole "separation of church and state" is not big on the list of things to accomplish. Plus, Newt is a favored son of Georgia and the only Southern candidate -- which surprises me frankly, given its prominence in getting a Republican elected.
(And, no, Texas is not the South).
Heard an interesting take on the race today from a Democratic pollster (so take it for what it's worth).
He claims Romney has been bombarding the Iowa voters with negative ads aimed at Gingrinch, rather than positive ads promoting himself. His strategy seems to be: I know I'm not going to win Iowa ... I just want to make sure Newt doesn't either.
He believes that it will work and the Romney-Gingrich battle will give the Iowa win to Ron Paul. Apparenrly, that doesn't bother Romney, who doesn't think Paul can win the nomination.
The REALLY interesting thing he suggested was that Jeb Bush may have mistimed his move, the way so many Democrats did in 1992. Remember, everybody thought George H. Bush was going to be unbeatable, so all the top Dem candidates (Cuomo, Kennedy, etc.) ducked the race, planning to run in '96. Ooops.
Bush -- reportedly against the advice of his father -- decided to wait until 2016. Now it looks like the Republican primary race is in a shambles and Obama is, of course, vulnerable. But it's too late, unless the Republicans end up with a brokered convention (possible but not likely). In that case, Ol' Jeb would seem to be the logical candidate.
FWIW (source alert), Rachel Maddow had a bit on the other night about robo-calls in New Hampshire testing Obama gainst Romney, Newt . . . and Jeb. Maybe someone plans to be the knight riding to the rescue of a fractured process some time down the line.
Again, take the source for what you will.
It's interesting to think about who, on the Repub side, might jump in late seeing a primary that has yet to find an inspiring candidate, and an incumbent president who seem vulnerable. There's a couple people out there who, I think, are more addicted to media attention than serious about running (that would be you, Mr. Trump, and you, Ms. Palin). Putting them aside, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie are both interesting names who could really turn things upside down. However, I think there would be a tremendous hesitancy about another Bush. W, fairly or unfairly, is still viewed as such a bad experience, I can't imagine Republicans being overly enthusiastic about putting his younger brother up as their guy. Especially since Obama, very smartly, didn't even bother to run against McCain in 2008...he was way too successful running against Bush to bother directly taking on the actual Republican nominee. I think Axelrod might drown in his own drool if the Republicans actually put a Bush up there to run against Obama.
I think it's probably too late for a new entry into the field. With the recent decline of Gingrich, I'm now 100% certain that Romney will be the Republican nominee. Republicans are in the curious situation of not particularly loving Romney because of his perceived "RINO" status, while not being enthusiastic enough about any Conservative to commit fully to them. Thus the series of Conservatives that have risen to challenge Romney only to shoot themselves in the foot and fall to the wayside, while Romney doesn't budge in the polls and his challengers rise and fall around him. Ultimately, he's going to be the candidate of a party who largely feels like, "Well, I'm not that crazy about him, but I really don't want another four years of Obama, and I don't think Gingrich/Perry/Bachmann/Huntsman/Paul has a shot in hell against him." Not exactly the kind of inspiring next-coming-of-Reagan that Hannity and other Conservatives were looking for, but that's the reality of what's likely to happen.
Paul is a major player. He'll never get the Republican nomination, and his views on some issues, particularly foreign policy, scare the heck out of too many people for him to have any chance of winning the presidency...but he could sure siphon enough fiscal conservatives/libertarians away from their default-vote-for-the-Republican status to hand Obama a win. The RNC is probably considering kidnapping him, or at least doing a Packers-to-Favre pay-to-not-play deal.
I agree this is the strategy involved. However, Ron Paul also is polling reasonably well in New Hampshire. It's a delicate balance. Romney wants Paul to do well in Iowa, but not so overwhelming well that it inspires voters in New Hampshire. If Paul wins both Iowa and New Hampshire... I think the Republican establishment will all have simultaneous heart attacks.
Part of me wonders if Romney is underestimating Huntsman and Paul in New Hampshire by putting all the focus against Gingrich. We'll see.
Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?
Republican operatives like Mike Murphy are saying the same thing. It makes sense. I saw one the ads this morning on one of the news shows harping on the Freddie Mac business with a suitcase full of cash as part of the Gingrich "baggage." It was slick and a pretty clever ad with the primary message being if one wants to reelect the president support Newt.
I believe most, if not all, of the ads are coming from the Romney's super PAC. In response to Newt's call to stop going negative, Romney has stated on at least several occasions that he and his campaign have no influence and cannot under the law which is true. How convenient for any candidate? The Supreme Court ruling appears to have opened up a big new source of money politics, which I don't bring up to take this into PPB territory. I simply wish to point out that this will be the first presidential cycle with this unbridled source of political funding.
Once the GOP field winnows down, expect a fire hose of super PAC money to be unleashed, and I suppose it's why political operatives expect more than a billion, yes that's billion with a B, to be spent on the general election. Since the ruling there are more than 240 registered super PACs, including 60 by one person.
Last edited by 77devil; 12-21-2011 at 03:17 PM.
FiveThirtyEight now gives Romney an equal chance with Paul of winning Iowa. I sorta think that if Romney takes Iowa it will be all over (it may already be).
The weird thing about Iowa, that everyone seems to forget, is the "second choice" problem where voters are forced to pick an alternate candidate if their candidate does not clear the 15% hurdle. I don't know how anyone could forecast Iowa given the uncertain way second choice voting works.
Take someone like Bachman or Perry. It is fairly likely many of their supporters will be at polling places where their candidate fails to reach 15%. Will those folks turn to Romney on a second ballot? I really doubt it. I think Gingrich may surprise a bit in Iowa as the best of the "second choice" options to folks who cannot support Romney or Paul. I think this worked for Obama in 2008 with folks who refused to support the polarizing Hillary Clinton.
But, I may be dead wrong. I hope Romney does not win Iowa. I am looking forward to another long, fun primary season like we had 4 years ago.
-Jason "as we get closer to election day, we may see some second choice polling... which would be really interesting" Evans
Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?
Excellent post. Ok, Repub here. IF Romney gets the nod he won't win; I can't vote for Perry but with the base as I know it, Perry stands a substantially higher chance of winning than does Romney. This again looks like a butt-whuppin' for the Repubs, which is fine with me. I remain worn out with politics and it's been that way for as long as I can remember, actually.
dukestheheat
hope I don't get dinged and if I do, I didn't mean it fellas.
and this does remind me that I need to change my signature line.
Ron Paul walked out of a CNN interview last night.
http://www.cnn.com/video/standard.ht...ewsletters.cnn
Probably will solidify support in Iowa but reinforce his fringe image elsewhere. Paul was pretty insistent in recent interviews that he will not run as a 3rd party candidate but did not dismiss entirely.
incidentally, since Jason started this thread, Romney has moved up about 10 percent on Intrade. As the news cycle focuses on the candidates in the lead up to Iowa, support in the betting market is consolidating which makes perfect sense to me. Unless somebody turns up a scandal in Romney's past or he flames out in Iowa, both highly unlikely, expect the bifurcation(Romney vs. everyone else) to continue as the caucus approaches.
Last edited by 77devil; 12-22-2011 at 07:33 AM.
I saw the author of Daisy Petals and Mushroom Clouds, LBJ, Barry Goldwater, and the Ad That Changed American Politics on a news broadcast this morning describing the famous, perhaps infamous, ad. Arguably it was the birth of negative advertising in the television era. It was shown just once and seen by an estimated 50 million viewers. Goldwater was already behind, but his poll numbers plunged afterwards.
For those of us who grew up in that era, fear of nuclear war, especially in the aftermath of the Cuban missile crisis, was real. This ad preyed on a lingering fear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDTBn...eature=related
Last edited by 77devil; 12-22-2011 at 10:00 AM.