Handicapping the 2012 GOP presidential nomination

[Chronos]

Whose name is that?

[septimus]

Last time around, out of the 10 candidates only Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo and Mike Huckabee were willing to admit their stupidity.

Let's be fair. Brownback wrote a clarification letter for the N.Y. Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/opinion/31brownback.html), giving a slightly different opinion to its readers than he gave to his less intellectual audience:
If belief in evolution means simply assenting to microevolution, small changes over time within a species, I am happy to say, as I have in the past, that I believe it to be true.

(Personally, this grudging reference to "microevolution ... within a species" left me amazed he bothered to submit this "retraction" at all. :smack: )

[Exapno Mapcase]

Whose name is that?

Beats me. Cain means spear in Hebrew, and Herman is derived from Germanic languages.

OK, what he's saying is that yes in Hebrew is "ken" which is pronounced similarly to Cain. High marks as a pun.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

I thought Cain was the founder of Godfather's pizza. Now people are telling me that no, he simply took over the chain and then slashed the workforce to improve the bottom line. If that's the case (if you don't mind confirming that for me, 'dope), not only do I have to retract some of the nice things I said about him but I have to add that in terms of professional behavior, this makes him pretty much exactly the same as Mitt Romney.

I still think Cain is the most charismatic guy in the field. But- meh. Not as genuine as I thought.

As for Romney, tell me if this position is a case of religious discrimination or simple common sense: The fact that this dude believes such wildly false claims about American history renders him disqualified for President. It is the same way a person whose religion claimed 2+2=5 would be disqualified from nuclear engineering- sorry, you need to be on board with certain facts to get the job.

The really interesting thing about this field is that one of them has to win. What a silly caucus this year!

[Chronos]

Even if Romney does believe everything in the Book of Mormon literally, that's a portion of American history of very low relevance to anything that's significant to politics. That the Latter-Day Saints were persecuted in the east and went west to establish their own community in Utah is of some small historical significance. Whether or not they actually made this move according to inspiration from the Angel Moroni is pretty much moot. And whether Jesus came to pre-Columbian America is no more relevant than whether he came to pre-Columbian Israel.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Is it possible to contrive a circumstance in which a Mormon President, in an effort not to 'blow their cover' as buying into counter-Mormon evidence, as a consequence screws up terribly?

[Crane]

Mormon Doctrine states that God established the Constitution of the United States in order to found the LDS religion.

That's a novel frame of reference for a US President.

Crane

[septimus]

Mormon Doctrine states that God established the Constitution of the United States in order to found the LDS religion.

That's a novel frame of reference for a US President.

But does Romney even believe that?

Replace "to found the LDS religion" with "wage war with Gog and Magog in preparation for the Final Days" and you have a zany doctrine that a recent President actually believed. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/aug/10/religion-george-bush)

Many of these guys, if campaigning to direct a book club, would be laughed off the stage. Instead they're serious contenders for the U.S. Presidency. :smack:

[Crane]

Cain, Gingrich and Romney are sharing the margin of error for leadership in the polls. Perry has predictably self-destructed. Bachman has flat lined and the others are road kill.

Tonight's debate topic is National Security and Foriegn Policy. Cain is clueless on both. Romney is marginally better. Experience may pay off for Gingrich tonight. This could be an optimum opportunity for Gingrich to take the lead.

Crane

[John DiFool]

Mormon Doctrine states that God established the Constitution of the United States in order to found the LDS religion.

Whoever said that obviously has been doing too much LDS.

[Crane]

Actually, whoever said that, read it in a text on Mormon Doctrine that was purchased in the Mormon book store.

Crane

[gonzomax]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/13/herman-cain-god-told-me-to-run-i-was-like-moses/
The race is over. Cain was told by god to run like Moses. How can you fight that? We may as well all order bad pizza and give up.

[PandaBear77]

I wish God would tell Allen West to run already.

[Kolak of Twilo]

I wish God would tell Allen West to run already.

Oh, that would be entertaining.

[PandaBear77]

Wildly entertaining, considering he'd likely kick Obama's ass.

*le sigh*

[Kolak of Twilo]

Aren't you funny!

Oddly, I remember folks making the same prediction about Rick Perry.

[GIGObuster]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/13/herman-cain-god-told-me-to-run-i-was-like-moses/
The race is over. Cain was told by god to run like Moses. How can you fight that? We may as well all order bad pizza and give up.

"What happened here is a miracle, and I want you to f****** acknowledge it!" -Samuel L. Jackson as the burning bush. :)

NSFW language only, 10 Things I Hate About Commandments video parody:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1kqqMXWEFs

[Walther Ego]

Just in case anybody was wondering, God told me not to run.

[Gagundathar]

I am glad you got the memo.
God told me to remind you not to run.
Something about a "checkered past".

I didn't know you played checkers.

[Walther Ego]

The checkers thing? Oh, that was just an unfortunate misunderstanding with gambling debts.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

The race is over. Cain was told by god to run like Moses. How can you fight that?

God didn't actually tell him to win.

[Steve MB]

The checkers thing? Oh, that was just an unfortunate misunderstanding with gambling debts.

So you are not a crook?

[Maus Magill]

Wait - so God told Cain, Bachman, and Santorum to run?

I'm beginning to wonder just how sincere God is.

[Balance]

Wait - so God told Cain, Bachman, and Santorum to run?

I'm beginning to wonder just how sincere God is.
What you're missing is that God is a troll (http://memebase.com/2011/03/26/memes-lol-god-goog-one-god/).

[42fish]

Something about a "checkered past".



No, it was "checkered pants" that were the problem. God's got a very strict dress code for His presidential candidates.

[BrainGlutton]

Wait - so God told Cain, Bachman, and Santorum to run?

I'm beginning to wonder just how sincere God is.

It should be news to no one that God has a cruel sense of humor.

[jayjay]

It should be news to no one that God has a cruel sense of humor.

I don't want to start any blasphemous rumors,
but it seems that God has a sick sense of humor.

[Crane]

I just watched Gary Johnson on MSNBC. He came across very well - common sense Libertarian (oxymoron?), successful business man, two term governor - that trumps both Gingrich and Cain.

This circus needs a new clown - maybe it's Johnson!

Crane

[Marley23]

Johnson's poll numbers are so low he can't even get into the debates. It's a little like saying Mike Gravel was going to take the lead in the Democratic field in 2008.

[Crane]

True - but consider what has happened so far. For a while Palin was in the lead and she was not even in the race. Bachmann was actually taken seriously for a while. Then, total airheads like Perry and Cain came out of nowhere to capture the lead. It's a race among non-contenders.

So, why not Johnson?

Crane

[Marley23]

Because no one even knows he's running, and even if they did, he's running for the nomination in the Republican Party, not the Libertarian Party. Wrong crowd.

[Onomatopoeia]

I don't want to start any blasphemous rumors,
but it seems that God has a sick sense of humor.And when I die, I expect to find him laughing.

[BrainGlutton]

And when I die, I expect to find him laughing.

God's Comic! (http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/God's-Comic-lyrics-Elvis-Costello/1905EF78943ECD29482568B000052BEE) :)

[Crane]

The latest Bloomberg poll of Iowa Republicans:

Cain 20%
Paul 19%
Romney 18%
Gingrich 17%

Can you believe it!?

Cain - The guy's a stuffed shirt. Strictly sub-Perry.
Paul - A fringe candidate at best.
Romney - Viable candidate but dropping in the polls.
Gingrich - Viable candidate but probably cannot sustain his polls bubble.

Crane

[Chefguy]

The latest Bloomberg poll of Iowa Republicans:

Cain 20%
Paul 19%
Romney 18%
Gingrich 17%

Can you believe it!?

Cain - The guy's a stuffed shirt. Strictly sub-Perry.
Paul - A fringe candidate at best.
Romney - Viable candidate but dropping in the polls.
Gingrich - Viable candidate but probably cannot sustain his polls bubble.

Crane

I saw a poll within the past day or so that has Gingrich within two percentage points in a runoff with Obama. Romney was also within single digits, and Paul was a distant third.

[Really Not All That Bright]

It's obvious that Romney is the only candidate who mainstream voters will take seriously at this point, barring an expected flash of not-being-a-dick from Gingrich.

However, I seriously question whether moderate voters will have any interest in Romney when they know he was the Republicans' 14th choice.

[RTFirefly]

Mormon Doctrine states that God established the Constitution of the United States in order to found the LDS religion.

That's a novel frame of reference for a US President. Hell, it seems like a rather novel frame of reference for a Mormon, considering that the U.S. government hounded the Mormons first out of upstate New York, then out of Illinois, and didn't exactly have peaceful relations with the Mormons' Salt Lake colony for quite a long time.

It would be like Christian doctrine stating that God established the Roman Empire in order to spread Christianity. What's a few persecutions between friends?

[BrainGlutton]

It's obvious that Romney is the only candidate who mainstream voters will take seriously at this point, barring an expected flash of not-being-a-dick from Gingrich.

However, I seriously question whether moderate voters will have any interest in Romney when they know he was the Republicans' 14th choice.

:confused: That's why moderate voters would like him.

[BrainGlutton]

Mormon Doctrine states that God established the Constitution of the United States in order to found the LDS religion.

Poor erring souls . . . God established the Constitution of the United States in order to found an LSD religion. So get on with it! He is running out of patience!

[WillFarnaby]

Paul - A fringe candidate at best.


19% is one hell of a fringe. So is 17% in New Hampshire (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-16/romney-leads-in-new-hampshire-where-voters-can-deliver-surprises.html).

[Algorithm]

19% is one hell of a fringe. So is 17% in New Hampshire (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-16/romney-leads-in-new-hampshire-where-voters-can-deliver-surprises.html).

I would wait until more polls show up supporting Bloomberg's numbers. Averaging with other recent polls (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html), Paul's numbers in Iowa don't look much improved over the last few months.

He is doing considerably better than last year (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_republican_caucus-207.html), though.

[John DiFool]

Poor erring souls . . . God established the Constitution of the United States in order to found an LSD religion. So get on with it! He is running out of patience!

Ahem. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14456710&postcount=760)

[Really Not All That Bright]

:confused: That's why moderate voters would like him.
The point is that nobody is going to bother voting for him if they don't think his own party is going to bother - and the fact that some new non-Romney dipshit is leading the polls every month strongly suggests they won't bother.

[WillFarnaby]

I would wait until more polls show up supporting Bloomberg's numbers. Averaging with other recent polls (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html), Paul's numbers in Iowa don't look much improved over the last few months.

He is doing considerably better than last year (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_republican_caucus-207.html), though.

Yeah I agree, I just don't think he is a "fringe" candidate this time around. Especially with him being pretty much the only dissenting voice on foreign policy among candidates in either party.

[Marley23]

Yeah I agree, I just don't think he is a "fringe" candidate this time around.
He is. The financial crisis brought some more people around to his way of thinking, but there is no way Ron Paul is getting nominated by a socially conservative political party. There are not nearly enough libertarians in the GOP for him.

[Buck Godot]

Yeah I agree, I just don't think he is a "fringe" candidate this time around. Especially with him being pretty much the only dissenting voice on foreign policy among candidates in either party.

He is a fringe candidate, but since this is true for all of the other Republican candidates it doesn't show.

[WillFarnaby]

What is the definition of a fringe candidate?

[BrainGlutton]

Yeah I agree, I just don't think he is a "fringe" candidate this time around. Especially with him being pretty much the only dissenting voice on foreign policy among candidates in either party.

That's exactly the sort of thing that makes a fringe candidate.

[WillFarnaby]

That's exactly the sort of thing that makes a fringe candidate.

What if a large part of the public agrees with him, would he still be considered fringe?

[Marley23]

What if a large part of the public agrees with him, would he still be considered fringe?
Do you think a large portion of the public agrees with him about the gold standard or dramatically reducing the entire scope of the federal government?

[Tristan]

What if a large part of the public agrees with him, would he still be considered fringe?

There might be a large bunch who would be all about going back on the gold standard and destroying the economy, or who would be ok with slashing the federal government to a fraction of what it is now (and thus create chaos and confusion on levels not seen since the founding of this country), but they are still a minority, and thankfully the adults in the republican party tend to drown them out.

If he ever starts getting serious numbers, the same focus that has broken Perry, and Bachman, and is currently gutting Cain will break Paul.

I would like to see libertarians gain traction, but as long as they are following the same old program, it won't work.

[WillFarnaby]

Do you think a large portion of the public agrees with him about the gold standard or dramatically reducing the entire scope of the federal government?

He doesn't support a gold standard outright.

I think more than a "fringe" amount of people, which has yet to be defined, agree with him on the role of government. Or at least are closer to his views on federal power than say Mitt Romney.

I guess we'll see though. I'm just wondering how much of a following he needs before he is considered beyond "fringe". Is someone like Huntsman fringe? Is fringe just a euphemism for radical?

[Marley23]

He doesn't support a gold standard outright.
How many people do you think support a gold standard at all? How many people do you think support abolishing the federal reserve, eliminating most of the government, a near-isolationist foreign policy, or the idea that a significant faction of people are pushing for a unified North American government? I'll grant you it isn't zero, but it's not enough people to win an election either.

I guess we'll see though. I'm just wondering how much of a following he needs before he is considered beyond "fringe". Is someone like Huntsman fringe? Is fringe just a euphemism for radical?
I think fringe connotes a relatively small number of enthusiastic supporters. Paul has that; I don't think Huntsman does.

[WillFarnaby]

How many people do you think support a gold standard at all? How many people do you think support abolishing the federal reserve, eliminating most of the government, a near-isolationist foreign policy, or the idea that a significant faction of people are pushing for a unified North American government? I'll grant you it isn't zero, but it's not enough people to win an election either.

We'll see in a few months.


I think fringe connotes a relatively small number of enthusiastic supporters. Paul has that; I don't think Huntsman does.

Ok so fringe, in this case, is better than being a "viable" candidate. It just seems like the term "fringe" is used consistently to describe Paul in an attempt to discredit him.

[gonzomax]

We'll see in a few months.




Ok so fringe, in this case, is better than being a "viable" candidate. It just seems like the term "fringe" is used consistently to describe Paul in an attempt to discredit him.

No it is used to describe him.

[Algorithm]

Ok so fringe, in this case, is better than being a "viable" candidate. It just seems like the term "fringe" is used consistently to describe Paul in an attempt to discredit him.

It's more an attempt to bring Paul supporters back to earth. While fervor for a political candidate isn't necessarily a bad thing, there seems to be this sad delusion amongst them that more people would support Paul if only people wouldn't ignore/discredit/misunderstand him.

The simple reality is that not everyone likes Ron Paul nor his policies - not a majority of Americans, not even a majority of Republicans. Paul's supporters refuse to accept this and just assume that non-supporters are unenlightened somehow, and do their best to game every non-scientific poll (e.g. straw polls, online polls) they can. Unfortunately for them, doing so doesn't alter reality in a way that will win Paul any primaries or elections, and just annoys the hell out of the organizers or content providers. Thus the self-perpetuated cycle of delusion continues - Paul supporters force people to ignore their input by ruining polls, then complain when the very people they forced to ignore them do so.

[Little Nemo]

It's more an attempt to bring Paul supporters back to earth. While fervor for a political candidate isn't necessarily a bad thing, there seems to be this sad delusion amongst them that more people would support Paul if only people wouldn't ignore/discredit/misunderstand him.

The simple reality is that not everyone likes Ron Paul nor his policies - not a majority of Americans, not even a majority of Republicans. Paul's supporters refuse to accept this and just assume that non-supporters are unenlightened somehow, and do their best to game every non-scientific poll (e.g. straw polls, online polls) they can. Unfortunately for them, doing so doesn't alter reality in a way that will win Paul any primaries or elections, and just annoys the hell out of the organizers or content providers. Thus the self-perpetuated cycle of delusion continues - Paul supporters force people to ignore their input by ruining polls, then complain when the very people they forced to ignore them do so.I agree. A marginal candidate can do okay on the fringe but he's never going to take the center stage. The majority of people are pretty apathetic about politics. They ignore it most of the time. That creates an opportunity for a relatively small group of dedicated people to have a disproportionate influence in some political arenas.

But this dedicated small group is already working at 100% to achieve this marginal success - it doesn't have any potential to scale up. If you have a district with 50,000 potential voters but only 1,000 of them actually bother to vote, then 600 dedicated people can turn an election. But if 20,000 of those people decide to vote, then those 600 are no longer a major factor.

That's where Ron Paul is. He ran as a Libertarian candidate for President in 1988 and got 432,179 votes in an election in which George Bush got 48,886,597 votes and Michael Dukakis got 41,809,476 votes. In a Presidential campaign, you need tens of millions of supporters and there aren't that many proto-Libertarians out there.

[Algorithm]

I would wait until more polls show up supporting Bloomberg's numbers.

Another recent Iowa poll (http://www.news.iastate.edu/news/2011/nov/ISUpoll).

Last cycle, this was about the time Huckabee really picked up steam (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_republican_caucus-207.html) and went on to win the caucus.

[The wind of my soul]

It's more an attempt to bring Paul supporters back to earth. While fervor for a political candidate isn't necessarily a bad thing, there seems to be this sad delusion amongst them that more people would support Paul if only people wouldn't ignore/discredit/misunderstand him.

Admittedly this is merely anecdotal and unscientific ... But I have encountered countless Republicans who have said that they support Ron Paul's message and politics, but would never vote for him because they don't see him as a viable candidate and don't think he has a shot at the presidency. (I have not met a single Democrat with this viewpoint.)

Also, I'd like to take this opportunity to toot my own horn. Two months ago I predicted that Gingrich would be the next not-Romney (post #738), and today he has officially overtaken Cain in the polls (link (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html)).

Does anybody have any predictions about what will happen next? Personally, I can't see Republicans getting behind Santorum, and the only other candidates that haven't already been a not-Romney are either moderate or Libertarian, neither of which is the sort of candidate that the religious right is likely to rally around. I think one of two things will happen: Gingrich may be able to potentially ride this out, simply because he has far more experience with being in the spotlight than the previous not-Romneys, and is much less likely to crumble under pressure. His skeletons seem to already be out of the closet, so unless new ones are found, many Republicans seem ready to forgive him for his previous marital indiscretions.

My other prediction is that all the Republicans who don't like Romney are eventually just going to choose whichever candidate they like best, splitting up all the votes and giving Romney a clean win.

Either way, I will be shocked if Romney does not get the nomination.

[gonzomax]

There are few who don't think Romney is in charge unless he fucks up. But whether he can get the various groups of the Republican party to vote for him is the question. How can he get the right riled up about Obamacare when it is Romneycare? Will the religious right swallow their values and vote for politics over religion. If they stay home, the Repubs are in trouble.

[Chronos]

Personally, I think that the only reason that Gingrich became the next Anyone But Romney was that so many pundits predicted that he would be. The cause-and-effect narrative is twisted around.

[Frank]

Does anybody have any predictions about what will happen next?
...

... I will be shocked if Romney does not get the nomination.

This has been my prediction for some time. He's the most mainstream Republican and it's his turn.

[Onomatopoeia]

This has been my prediction for some time. He's the most mainstream Republican and it's his turn.Yep, I've been saying the same for quite some time as well. However, it has been, and continues to be awfully entertaining to see the parade of Not-Romneys. :)

[jayjay]

Yep, I've been saying the same for quite some time as well. However, it has been, and continues to be awfully entertaining to see the parade of Not-Romneys. :)

Some clever political cartoonist really needs to do a parody of Family Circus's Not-Me.

[Frank]

However, it has been, and continues to be awfully entertaining to see the parade of Not-Romneys. :)
Can't argue with that, can I? :D

[Steve MB]

Some clever political cartoonist really needs to do a parody of Family Circus's Not-Me.

You mean like this (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/14/1035933/-Not-Mitt-Romney)?

[jayjay]

You mean like this (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/14/1035933/-Not-Mitt-Romney)?

I think I want to marry Tom Tomorrow...

[RTFirefly]

You mean like this (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/14/1035933/-Not-Mitt-Romney)?Fuckin' brilliant!!

[Crane]

I think he's got it!

Crane

[Lago Ys-Transform]

After everything that has happened last week I am much less certain that Romney will win the nomination. His biggest and best hope right now is for another candidate to have a simultaneous resurgence as Gingrich and - this is the important part - without collapsing Gingrich's numbers too much, hence splitting the vote. If Gingrich fades he'll probably just be replaced by someone else.

The interesting thing about Gingrich's rise is that... actually, it's completely baffling to me. Almost everything sensible people articulate about not liking Romney applies to Gingrich, too. If not more so. The pandering? That's there. Cozying up to Big Finance? That's there. The warmed-over Washington insider? That's there. Gingrich's rise makes me think that there's something personally about Romney that people don't like. And if that's the case Gingrich deflating isn't going to help him unless it's particularly well-timed; all that's going to do is just let someone else become the front-runner. So that said, Romney's best hopes IMO is that either Gingrich collapses during some crucial vote periods (like in the NH - SC - FL trifecta) or Gingrich stays in, some other candidate picks up support, and Ron Paul holds steady.

That kind of sucks. I actually liked Gingrich once upon a time in a 'you slick bastard' kind of way. I like a politician with vision and one that likes to, you know, talk about things instead of just spewing vapid slogans. What the hell ever happened to futurist history professor Newt? He and Al Gore were my favorite American politicians once upon a time.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Same thing that happened to Principled John McCain: he lost.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

But wait--why would conservative Republicans go for Gingrich? He's been pushing himself as a historian, and touting his reputation as a much-published author and a professor of history? They hate that, as witnessed by the numerous attacks on Obama as an academic.

Plus, he's the quintessence of insider, Washington-centric, old boys in the Beltway lobbyist-career pol. They hate that, too. He's doomed!!

Unless they don't actually care about any of that shit. Could that be possible?

[Frank]

If Gingrich fades he'll probably just be replaced by someone else.
They're running out of someone elses. Santorum hasn't had a turn at the top yet. I think that's it. Well, except for Huntsman who has the Mormon thing going on too, and is entirely too reasonable.

[Lago Ys-Transform]

What makes you think that a previous candidate can't rise from the ashes?

Granted, this previous candidate will be Perry, but still.

[Fiveyearlurker]

Almost everything sensible people articulate about not liking Romney applies to Gingrich, too. If not more so.

Gingrich isn't a Mormon.

[jayjay]

Gingrich isn't a Mormon.

Three wives...so far. :)

[Quartz]

Is Karger still in the race?

[BrainGlutton]

Is Karger still in the race?

Apparently. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Karger#2012_presidential_bid) Of course, he falls under the "Not Invited to the Debates" category. No, actually, he falls under the Freak Squad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freak_Squad) category.

[Quartz]

Apparently. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Karger#2012_presidential_bid) Of course, he falls under the "Not Invited to the Debates" category.

A pity. I've watched a broadcast or two of his and he seems to be right up the Republicans' alley.

No, actually, he falls under the Freak Squad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freak_Squad) category.

More of a freak show than the 'main contenders'?

[BrainGlutton]

More of a freak show than the 'main contenders'?

Check out Log Cabin Republican (and his transformation-power!).

[Lantern]

Why is the rise of Gingrich surprising? There is a lot of energy in the conservative movement and they really don't want to settle for Romney. They are desperately searching for a conservative candidate.

Gingrich is erratic and poorly organized but the other conservative candidates are hardly better in this regard. Compared to them Gingrich has several advantages:
a) He has high-level national experience, in fact the only candidate who can claim this.
b) He has performed well in the debates in marked contrast to Perry
c) While he can veer off message sometimes for the most part he is reliably conservative. In fact the 1994 election is a shining moment in conservative history and Gingrich was the chief architect.

Whether all this is enough to win the nomination is another matter. Gingrich needs to raise a lot of money and organize better. He needs to convince senior GOP people and fundraisers that he is capable of running in a general election. I tend to agree with the conventional wisdom that Romney will win but I think that that someone, probably Gingrich, from the right wing will give him a real scare and possibly pull off an upset. So if the conventional wisdom puts the probability of a non-Romney winner at say 20% I would put it at 40%.

[Quartz]

Check out Log Cabin Republican (and his transformation-power!).

I did. I really rather wish you hadn't linked to that page.

[BrainGlutton]

Why is the rise of Gingrich surprising?

Because Gingrich, somehow, does not seem to exist any more, not even when he's holding the floor. It's like putting up with your smart-but-crazy great-uncle at Thanksgiving.

[Voyager]

What makes you think that a previous candidate can't rise from the ashes?

Granted, this previous candidate will be Perry, but still.

Ron Paul. Assuming he can shake off the invisible to news cameras spell he appears to be under.

[BrainGlutton]

Ron Paul. Assuming he can shake off the invisible to news cameras spell he appears to be under.

He'll be POTUS some time after Ralph Nader.

[Jas09]

You guys obviously haven't seen his new plan: The Ron Paul Family Cookbook (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/2012-ron-paul-family-cookbook_n_1121301.html)

And a couple of polls came out today showing Newt with a HUGE lead in Floriday. Like, 30-points huge.

[BobLibDem]

I had already proclaimed Mitt the winner, but I've changed my mind. It's gonna be Newt. His skeletons have already been aired and all the other un-Romneys have crashed and burned. Now that the holidays are here, politics will go in slower motion and take up less of our attention. That has the effect of freezing the race in place, with the exception of Cain's defectors going to Newt. I figure Romney already has the support of everyone who can stand him. So Merry Christmas, Mr. Obama, your gift is going to be delivered sometime in January.

[Simplicio]

And a couple of polls came out today showing Newt with a HUGE lead in Floriday. Like, 30-points huge.

He can rely on FL's large number of delegates and follow the Gulliani path to victory then.

Newt seems to have peaked at the right time to become the "not Romney" during the actual primaries, but I can't picture him winning the nomination. Partially because he doesn't seem to be able to stay in the public eye for more then a few months at a time without imploding. Partially because he's held at least as many moderate stances as Romney (he supported the individual mandate and spent most of the last decade being vocally pro-carbon capping)

Finally, because the GOP is usually pretty good at putting electability first in selecting Prez candidates. The general public more or less decided what it thought of Newt during the 90's, and I don't think he really has room to change that opinion much. That makes him a poor candidate in the General, and I think GOP primary voters are aware of that.

[Icarus]

I do believe that Newt will make some headway in the primaries. But like we have seen with many in the past (McCain 2000, Huckabee), the front-runner (polls be damned) Mitt will out-organize and out-spend him and pass him up.

I said back in May that Newt would be the VP in the Cheney/Biden mold (elder statesman). His recent surge convinces me of that all the more. He'll rack up a useful pile of primary support he can hand over and he'll provide a modicum of regional balance - he's not a "shucks y'all" southerner, but he is from Georgia.

[Jas09]

He can rely on FL's large number of delegates and follow the Gulliani path to victory then.I share your skepticism on Newt's chances, but I don't think he's doing the Giuliani approach. Especially when you consider that his lead in SC is even larger than in FL.

If he wins Iowa (very possible, it's only like 4 weeks away now), stays close in NH (also quite possible), and wins SC (seems almost certain), then Mitt is in for a big-time fight. I still think that even if all of this happens (which is basically best-case for Newt) that the GOP will backlash in time for Mitt to pick it up again on Super Tuesday and later - but I'm not sure I'd put it at much more than 50/50 right now.

[John DiFool]

You guys obviously haven't seen his new plan: The Ron Paul Family Cookbook (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/2012-ron-paul-family-cookbook_n_1121301.html)

Let me guess-the subtitle is "To Serve Obama."

[Crane]

Cain will be the big news story tomorrow. Looks like his wife did not know about Ginger and the money, and she is not amused.

Time to run in the next Republican clown - it's the Newt's turn.

Anybody believe that with Newt's history there is nothing new to be revealed? Watch!

Crane

[wmulax93]

Cain will be the big news story tomorrow. Looks like his wife did not know about Ginger and the money, and she is not amused.


I think Biz Markie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aofoBrFNdg&ob=av2e) covered this already...

[Love Rhombus]

A fun side note: Huntsman has chosen not to attend a debate hosted by The Donald. (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/jon-huntsman-skip-presidential-debate-moderated-donald-trump-201000365.html)

My favorite bit: "We look forward to watching Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich suck up to Trump with a big bowl of popcorn," Huntsman spokesman Tim Miller told Yahoo News.

[DoctorJ]

I had already proclaimed Mitt the winner, but I've changed my mind. It's gonna be Newt. His skeletons have already been aired and all the other un-Romneys have crashed and burned.
I agree that Newt has a good chance at this point (certainly better than he should), but hard as it may be to believe I don't think all of his skeletons have been aired. He had his ethical issues when he was Speaker, and he has spent the years since running a fairly sleazy lobbying operation. I'd be surprised if he doesn't still have a few scandals in front of him--it's just a matter of when they'll come out.

[Crane]

Newt will self destruct just like the others. He does not have the organization or funding to engage in a serious campaign.

However, Newt could disrupt the primary. When Romney goes negative, the newter may find a way to raise the Mormon issue.

The Gingrich template is to mix blatant negative statements with denial. Something like:

'Mitt is an American patriot of the highest moral character, but his personal beliefs are basically Marxist.'

Crane

[Steve MB]

Maybe a more rational candidate (http://xkcd.com/985/) will jump in.

[John DiFool]

Or perhaps a darkhorse (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44hIoezEpgM#t=0h6m53s).

Not that seeing Gingrich and Mittens engage in a Russian Roulette duel wouldn't be entertaining...

[Kolak of Twilo]

This new Quinnipiac poll (http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/poll-gingrich-swing-states/2011/12/08/id/420304) seems to indicate the distaste the Republican base has for Romney and their crush on Gingrich may run a little deeper than previously thought. I can't imagine Newt making it to November without his baggage tripping him up but I also don't know that I'm willing to buy into the inevitability of Romney's nomination anymore.

I suspect this isn't a very good morning at Mitt's campaign headquarters.

[BobLibDem]

I'm a believer. Newt is going to run Romney right out of town. The base clearly will never warm up to Romney and they seem blind to Newt's many shortcomings. Since Newt has already been as discredited as one can be, it's hard to see how anything new would turn the Republican base off on him. Newt will eat him for lunch in Iowa, then either come close or win in New Hampshire. After drubbing him again in South Carolina, all the other non-Romneys will drop out in short order. I don't see how in a one on one primary that Romney could ever beat Gingrich.

[Kolak of Twilo]

And it just gets worse for Mitt. Gingrich has big leads in latest South Carolina and Florida polls (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/11/9365498-gingrich-opens-up-big-leads-in-south-carolina-and-florida). For those who don't want to click - in a contest with the current field of candidates Gingrich wins with 18 points over Romney in South Carolina. In Florida, Gingrich comes out on top by 15 points. When the choices were reduced to just Gingrich and Romney it just gets worse for Romney.

I don't think this is a done deal yet, but Mitt needs to get some traction fast or he is going to be in big trouble. I find it remarkable a candidate as obviously flawed as Newt could get this much support from the Tea Party crowd and the Republican base but it looks like there is something about him that resonates with these people.

After watching part of last night's Iowa debate I have to say Newt managed to come off as much less smug and condescending than I expected. I'm not convinced yet he has staying power given his past, but I think this is a much more serious challenge to the inevitable Romney nomination than has yet been seen.

In another thread a few days ago I said I had changed my mind on chances of Gingrich getting the nomination from being impossible to simply unlikely. I'm beginning to think it is actually a possibility, albeit remote. Caucus night should be very interesting.

[Euphonious Polemic]

I find it remarkable a candidate as obviously flawed as Newt could get this much support from the Tea Party crowd and the Republican base but it looks like there is something about him that resonates with these people.


Well, he was screwing his Congressional staffer Callista Gingrich behind his wife's back (while at the same time investigating Clinton), proved that he could shut down and destroy government, supplied inaccurate information to House investigators which represented "intentional or ... reckless" disregard of House rules and led the Republicans to the worst midterm performance in 64 years, leading to him quitting the House in a fit of pique.

I guess the voters see him as representing their ethical, moral and professional ideals.

[Crane]

It keeps getting funnier - what act will follow Gingrich? I notice that Bachmann is getting some good press.

Crane

[Crane]

Gingrich is likely to self destruct before the Iowa 'Primary'. It looks like Ron Paul is next in line rather than Bachmann.

Crane

[Onomatopoeia]

Gingrich is likely to self destruct before the Iowa 'Primary'. It looks like Ron Paul is next in line rather than Bachmann.

CraneWhat? Ron Paul gets a turn as the Not-Romney before Santorum? ;)

[Balance]

What? Ron Paul gets a turn as the Not-Romney before Santorum? ;)
Naturally. Santorum comes up at the end.

[Zakalwe]

What? Ron Paul gets a turn as the Not-Romney before Santorum? ;)

Naturally. Santorum comes up at the end.Admit it. You two set that up in email before posting it, didn't you?

[Crane]

Mollie Ivans described the Republican candidates well (from memory):


'They are all dipshits. You just get to pick which dipshit to vote for'


Crane

[RTFirefly]

Mollie Ivans described the Republican candidates well (from memory):


'They are all dipshits. You just get to pick which dipshit to vote for'


CraneAnd never has it been so true as in the 2012 cycle. Lord knows the 2008 field looked weak, but this year's field is making McCain, Huckabee, Fred Thompson, and even the Romney of 2007-08 look like giants by comparison. (Rudy 911, OTOH, would have fit right in in this circus; it's too bad he didn't come back for an encore.)

Hell, they even make GWB look good by comparison, and I'd have told you not very long ago that that would be impossible. But they've managed it.

[RTFirefly]

Rick Perry just can't help himself, can he?

His latest is that he'd consider having Herman Cain in his Cabinet (http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/12/17/rick-perry-herman-cain-is-the-type-of-person-id-consider-for-defense-appointment/).

The URL suggests Perry would specifically consider him for Secretary of Defense, but the text of the article doesn't back that up, only citing where Cain himself has said he'd like to be considered for that post.

But still, I think considering him for ANY Cabinet post is bad enough at this point. Now that Cain's dropped out, even the wingnuts have been able to accept his clownitude, I think. This is only going to reinforce the notion that Perry doesn't have the brains to even play a President on TV.

[Crane]

LOL

President - Perry
Defense - Cain
State - Bachmann
Treasury - Paul
Education - Beck

Surely the Republican party has some real candidates to offer!

Crane

[RTFirefly]

I confess I have no idea what's going to happen in Iowa. IMHO, there are three main possibilities:

1) Over the Christmas holidays, the effect of the attacks on Gingrich fades, and he either limps to victory in Iowa, or bounces back and wins pretty strongly.

2) Gingrich fades, and Ron Paul picks up enough support to win, partly from his genuine fans, and partly as a 'none of the above' option.

3) Gingrich fades, but his former supporters and the undecideds split enough ways that Romney threads the needle to pick up the win.

What I am reasonably sure of is that it's going to be one of those three. Bachmann's and Perry's support may inch up a bit, but even among Iowa primary voters, they've been looked over and mostly found wanting.

After Iowa, it gets clearer. If Gingrich wins, he's the anti-Romney, and it's a two-man race. If not, there really isn't an anti-Romney, and Romney wins more or less by default. After Iowa, nobody's going to have much money besides Romney and Paul, except Gingrich if he can win Iowa and turn that into contributions from the base.

Romney wins NH. Whatever one thinks of the Huntsman boomlet, he's basically an anti-anti-Romney, and there won't be a swing to Huntsman unless enough people think Romney's cooked.

And then there's SC. It looks like home field for the more wingnutty candidate in the race, but SC's history has been one of being where the establishment-backed candidate nails it down, regardless of which side the challenge comes from, whether it's Bush over McCain in 2000 or McCain over Huckabee in 2008. With Nikki Haley endorsing Romney, I think odds are good for a replay.

[RTFirefly]

After the latest PPP poll (Newt drops to 14% in Iowa), he's looking like toast. Wow.

I don't see how Romney loses at this point.

[Crane]

Wierd!

The minute by minute polling has Gingrich fading and Ron Paul taking the lead in Iowa.

Definitely more reality TV than a serious election.

Crane

[jsgoddess]

Gingrich and Romney tied in the CNN national poll, which doesn't mean a whole lot other than glimpse at where the tides might be.

This is a fascinating cycle. It would be frustrating to be a Republican in it, but from the outside, it's just plain neat to watch.

[Simplicio]

This is a fascinating cycle. It would be frustrating to be a Republican in it, but from the outside, it's just plain neat to watch.

I guess, though it kind feels boring in that its a long drawn out song-and-dance for the GOP to choose the candidate everyone knew years ago they were going to end up with. Good for comic relief maybe, but not exactly suspenseful.

Of course maybe I'm wrong and this time it'll be different and we'll have Paul or Newt win the nomination, but I doubt it.

[Crane]

Newt's a possibility, but I don't think the establishment will allow it.

Caran

[smithsb]

Ging-grinch, Perry, and Bachman all miss qualification for Virgina Republican Primary. No write-ins accepted either.

[Crane]

And now Santorum - they have got to be kidding!

His wife had a second term abortion which was OK with them, but Santorum wants a Constitutional ammendment to ban ALL abortions. Then there's the part about no contraception. That's all we need - more government in the bedroom.

The Clown car isn't empty yet - I wonder what's next!

Crane

[Steve MB]

Santorum booed in contentious exchange over gay marriage (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/05/9985080-santorum-booed-in-contentious-exchange-over-gay-marriage)

Looks like he needs to hire better audience screeners.

[Crane]

Since this is the handicapping thread:

Romney - Win by a length

Gingrich - Show after New Hampshire

Paul - Place in the South

Santorum - Back in the pack

Perry - Roadkill

Johnson - Who? Switched parties and will run as a Libertarian. Waaayyyy back in the pack.

Santorum is an anomaly. He scares voters. He presents himself as a viable politician. Then he says things that make Bachmann look sane. Scarey!

Crane

[BrainGlutton]

Newt's a possibility, but I don't think the establishment will allow it.

Caran

Which one?

[Crane]

Republican

Crane

[jsgoddess]

Huntsman's gone. No surprise. I think we'll see his name again in 2016 if Obama wins this.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/huntsman-says-hes-quitting-g-o-p-race/

[Exapno Mapcase]

Huntsman's gone. No surprise. I think we'll see his name again in 2016 if Obama wins this.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/huntsman-says-hes-quitting-g-o-p-race/

Half of his supporters will move over to Romney.

The other half, a Mrs. Eugenia Smith-Fensteermacher of South Freedom, New Hampshire, has yet to make up her mind.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Huntsman's gone. No surprise. I think we'll see his name again in 2016 if Obama wins this.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/huntsman-says-hes-quitting-g-o-p-race/

I think he can get the nomination then. This year steeled Huntsman.

[CaptMurdock]

Half of his supporters will move over to Romney.

The other half, a Mrs. Eugenia Smith-Fensteermacher of South Freedom, New Hampshire, has yet to make up her mind.

Don't rush her! She's had a hard time during this campaign... :cool:

[Measure for Measure]

Intrade puts Romney's chances of winning the nomination at 90%. I agree. Last week I would have said 80% though.

They think Obama's odds of winning the election is 52%. I'd give Romney a 55% chance of a November victory if things are tied up before the end of February and 2012 GDP growth is 2%, so I'd say Intrade is a sliver generous to Obama.

[RTFirefly]

Huntsman's gone. No surprise. I think we'll see his name again in 2016 if Obama wins this.Sure, if Obama wins in November, Huntsman will run in 2016.

But what he was running for, this time, was to be the guy whose 'turn' it was in 2016.

I doubt he did well enough to nail down a win in that particular race. Third in NH, and way back in the white noise in Iowa and nationally, really doesn't set you up as the guy for next time.

Remember that in some years, nobody gets set up as the leading candidate for the next cycle. In the 2000 cycle, GWB was clearly the chosen guy, almost two years out, and he wasn't a candidate in 1996. Meaning none of the 1996 also-rans did well enough to be the presumed 2000 choice. No reason why any of the 2012 also-rans have to get any traction in 2016, either with the voters or the party establishment or the big donors.

[RTFirefly]

Perry's dropping out, effective today (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/perry-to-end-bid-for-presidency/). Recent polls in SC have shown his support there in the 3-4% range, which pretty much explains why.

Just in time for Newt, whose poll numbers have been rocketing upwards since Monday night's debate, to pick up what little support Perry had. It may not be much, but given how the race in SC has tightened, that might be enough to put Newt over the top on Saturday. Should be interesting.

[Maus Magill]

Conventional thought right now is that Perry's endorsement of Gingrich might consolidate the conservative vote.

In other news, it looks like Santorum* might have actually won Iowa.

* I'm not sure if that's spelt correctly, but I'm sure as hell not looking it up.

[elucidator]

Oh, its OK, they're all back up now.

[RTFirefly]

Looking at RealClearPolitics' poll summary for the SC primary (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/sc/south_carolina_republican_presidential_primary-1590.html) is quite interesting. The three polls taken just yesterday, averaged, show Gingrich at 33% and Romney at 29.3%.

Rasmussen, 1/18, has Newt 33, Mitt 31.
Insider Advantage, 1/18, has Newt 32, Mitt 29.
PPP, 1/18, has Newt 34, Mitt 28.

Before that, we have:

Politico, 1/17-18, Newt 30, Mitt 37. (I'd love to see the breakdowns for each day.)
NBC/Marist, 1/16-17, Newt 24, Mitt 34. (1/16: Mitt by 15; 1/17: Mitt by 5.)

If you did a straight average of all SC GOP polls taken since Monday's debate, you'd get Romney ahead by 0.2%. But even between two days ago and yesterday, the momentum has been continuing towards Newt.

If the primary were being held today, I'd bet on Newt. But with one more debate tonight, followed by the televising of part of the Marianne Gingrich interview, who knows what things will look like in 24 hours?

[Kolak of Twilo]

If the primary were being held today, I'd bet on Newt. But with one more debate tonight, followed by the televising of part of the Marianne Gingrich interview, who knows what things will look like in 24 hours?

Clearly this is the crucial part. If the good folks of South Carolina believe the things Marianne Gingrich has said The Newt could lose steam fast. If he ends up winning it won't do anything more than delay Mitt locking it up down the road. Of course, the comedy will continue to be entertaining either way.

[RTFirefly]

Clearly this is the crucial part. If the good folks of South Carolina believe the things Marianne Gingrich has said The Newt could lose steam fast. If he ends up winning it won't do anything more than delay Mitt locking it up down the road. Of course, the comedy will continue to be entertaining either way.As a Democratic partisan, I strongly prefer a long, bitter, divisive fight on the GOP side, resulting in a wounded nominee, not to mention losers who've already written all the attack ads against that nominee that the Obama campaign will ever need.

Yeah, Mitt will win in the end, but if the end is two months from now, rather than two days, then so much the better.

[Kolak of Twilo]

As a Democratic partisan, I strongly prefer a long, bitter, divisive fight on the GOP side, resulting in a wounded nominee, not to mention losers who've already written all the attack ads against that nominee that the Obama campaign will ever need.

Yeah, Mitt will win in the end, but if the end is two months from now, rather than two days, then so much the better.

I couldn't have said it better.

And with Newt's dressing down of John King and the "media elite" in the debate earlier tonight, he may well still win the SC primary. He certainly had the audience eating out of his hand.

[RTFirefly]

Sounds like Newt was the big winner in the debate last night, continuing his roll. I think he's gonna win SC tomorrow. Pass the popcorn!

[BrainGlutton]

Clearly this is the crucial part. If the good folks of South Carolina believe the things Marianne Gingrich has said The Newt could lose steam fast. If he ends up winning it won't do anything more than delay Mitt locking it up down the road. Of course, the comedy will continue to be entertaining either way.

Was it Winston Churchill? Who said democracy is the one truly amusing form of government humanity has ever devised.

Well, let it be so. No one laughs at the government or politicians in non-democratic countries. Partly because they don't dare, and partly because it ain't funny.

[Crane]

LOL - Newt balanced the budget at the peak of the greatest economic boom in history. Romney's a corporate raider. And, these two are on top!

Go figure.

Crane

[Chronos]

Well, let it be so. No one laughs at the government or politicians in non-democratic countries. Partly because they don't dare, and partly because it ain't funny. I don't know, Kim Jong Mentally-Ill could be pretty funny.

[Crane]

It looks like there is not much handicapping to be done in Florida. Newt is running away with it, even before the exchange of negative ads begins.

But, what about the outlook nationwide. Can Newt hold the lead? How a dark horse: Jeb Bush?

Crane

[Bob Ducca]

But, what about the outlook nationwide. Can Newt hold the lead? How a dark horse: Jeb Bush?


There is no GOP Cavalry Coming (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/theres-no-gop-cavalry-coming-its-too-late-to-get-on-the-ballot.php?ref=fpb). According to the article, it's pretty much impossible at this point... or "political science fiction" as they call the prospects of someone new jumping in at this late date.

[RTFirefly]

LOL - Newt balanced the budget at the peak of the greatest economic boom in history. And of course, Newt couldn't have balanced it even then, without the tax hike that Clinton passed in 1993 that Newt vehemently opposed. So it's absurd to give Newt the credit for balancing the budget.

[BrainGlutton]

And of course, Newt couldn't have balanced it even then, without the tax hike that Clinton passed in 1993 that Newt vehemently opposed. So it's absurd to give Newt the credit for balancing the budget.

Which won't stop him from taking it, as I heard him do in the Tampa debate last night.

[RTFirefly]

As of today, Newt's ahead, 31-27, in Gallup's national poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx), which is a 5-day rolling average. In this case, the polling days are 1/19 to 1/23.

Romney was up by 1 just yesterday, so there was a 5-point swing. But to swing a 5-day poll by 5 points, the most recent day has to be ~25 points different from the day that dropped off - that is, Newt polled ~25 points better relative to Romney yesterday in Gallup's nationwide poll than he did on Wednesday of last week - which was the second day after the debate that got the current Gingrich boom rolling.

I'd really love to see their one-day results. Because I have a feeling Newt's absolutely crushing Mitt over the past 2 days.

[RTFirefly]

Newt's up, 32-24, in Gallup's national poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx). But he's falling through the floor in Florida (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14706493&postcount=45).

So, what's different about Florida? Republicans elsewhere in the country are watching (and having their opinions shaped by) the debates in other states. But people in Florida are getting vastly different ads right now than those elsewhere.

As Cyndi Lauper sang, "Money Changes Everything."

I don't see how Newt can win Florida at this point. And if he can't win Florida, I don't see how he wins the nomination. So it'll be Mitt after all.

But if Newt's goal is to be a pain in Romney's backside, he can stay in the race through June, and force Romney to spend a lot of money in each state to knock Newt down with millions of dollars in negative ads.

[Quartz]

Apparently there is a movement (http://blogs.indystar.com/varvelblog/2012/01/25/distress-signal/) to get Mitch Daniels back in the game. :D

Seems to me, he's keeping his powder dry for 2016.

[RTFirefly]

Apparently there is a movement (http://blogs.indystar.com/varvelblog/2012/01/25/distress-signal/) to get Mitch Daniels back in the game. :D

Seems to me, he's keeping his powder dry for 2016.The link at post 892 explains why it's too late for anyone to jump in at this point.

There's no real movement to try to convince Daniels to jump in, just wishful thinking on the part of some pundits.

Besides, where would he fit in? He's an establishment Republican (which tells you a lot about how far right the GOP establishment is nowadays, but I digress), which means that he can forget about auditioning for the next anti-Romney if/when Newt fizzles. His only opening, even if he had time to get on the ballot in enough states to keep anyone else from winning, would be as a replacement anti-anti-Romney if Gingrich was wiping the floor with Romney.

That's not happening, and it's not going to happen. So the Daniels fans must be prepared to wait for the next race.

[Crane]

It looks like the uncertainty is not yet resolved. Santorum who was a non-entity a short while ago is now poised to take Michigan. And, Gingrich may have abrief surge in the South.

I suspect a weakened Romney will still prevail. He'll beat the not-Romneys to run as the not-Obama.

Crane

[Maus Magill]

538 is currently giving the following odds:

Arizona
Romney: 71%
Santorum: 29%
Gingrich: 0%

Michigan
Romney: 43%
Santorum: 57%
Gingrich: 0%

Georgia
Romney: 15%
Santorum: 15%
Gingrich: 70%

Ohio
Romney: 8%
Santorum: 92%
Gingrich: 1%

Oklahoma
Romney: 27%
Santorum: 50%
Gingrich: 22%

[RTFirefly]

538 is currently giving the following odds:

Arizona
Romney: 71%
Santorum: 29%
Gingrich: 0%

Michigan
Romney: 43%
Santorum: 57%
Gingrich: 0%

Georgia
Romney: 15%
Santorum: 15%
Gingrich: 70%

Ohio
Romney: 8%
Santorum: 92%
Gingrich: 1%

Oklahoma
Romney: 27%
Santorum: 50%
Gingrich: 22%


Here's what I'm seeing at 538 (updated at 8:06am):

Arizona
Romney: 84%
Santorum: 16%
Gingrich: 0%

Michigan
Romney: 51%
Santorum: 49%
Gingrich: 0%

Georgia
Romney: 34%
Santorum: 32%
Gingrich: 32%

Mitt's ad barrage must be paying off.

[Oy!]

Well, Mitt's ad barrage and publicity on what Santorum actually, you know, says and believes.

[Chronos]

What puzzles me about FiveThirtyEight's current projections is that the projected vote percentages don't match the projected likely winners. For instance, for Michigan, he projects Santorum to get 35.5% of the vote to Romney's 35.4%, but gives Romney a 51% chance of victory to Santorum's 49%. And in Georgia, he projects Gingrich with 27.2% of the vote to Romney's 27.1%, but gives Romney a 34% chance of victory to Gingrich's 32% chance. In other words, in both states, he's saying that the most likely outcome is one which puts Romney in second place, but that Romney has a slightly better chance of winning than his nearest competitor.

Now, statistically, I know there are ways that this could happen, if the distributions of possible totals are complicated enough, but I don't think he's given any indication that his primary models are sufficiently complicated to justify that. I think his model just uses Gaussian errors on the most-likely values, and the model doesn't really include enough data (nothing but polling numbers) to construct a very complicated error model. It'd be nice to see a post from him explaining what's going on there.

[Jas09]

Lots of info here (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/how-our-primary-forecasts-work/) including fancy words like logistic regression and quantile regression.

From what I can grok the two outputs (win probability and projected vote totals) are pretty much independently calculated from the data.

[Kolak of Twilo]

Updated at 1:20 AM:


Arizona
Romney: 39.7%
Santorum: 31.9%
Gingrich: 17.4%

Michigan
Romney: 36%
Santorum: 37.4% <-------The Amazing Shrinking Man
Paul: 12.2%

Georgia
Romney: 27.1%
Santorum: 26.8%
Gingrich: 27.2% <------What!?!?!

Ohio
Romney: 26.5%
Santorum: 45.1%
Gingrich: 14.8%

Oklahoma
Romney: 26.9%
Santorum: 37.3%
Gingrich: 23.3%

Shifting sand.......

[smithsb]

'Buddy' Roemer announces end to GOP presidential campaign (http://bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2012/02/22/buddy-roemer-announces-end-gop-presidential-campaign/vblLzfxhRJU7ankgcPuU5H/story.html)

[/scrapes off bumper sticker/]
It all ends tomorrow, 23 Feb, according to the release.
Perhaps he will release all his delagates to Ginggrinch?

[Crane]

Gary Johson is still hanging in there - oh yeah, he's a Libertarian now - er -again - um - I think.

Crane

[Damuri Ajashi]

'Buddy' Roemer announces end to GOP presidential campaign (http://bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2012/02/22/buddy-roemer-announces-end-gop-presidential-campaign/vblLzfxhRJU7ankgcPuU5H/story.html)

[/scrapes off bumper sticker/]
It all ends tomorrow, 23 Feb, according to the release.
Perhaps he will release all his delagates to Ginggrinch?

What delegates? Am I being whooshed?

[smithsb]

Yes, I had to scrape off the Gary Johnson bumper sticker too!

[Lantern]

538 has a big lead for Romney in Arizona and Virginia, big leads for Santorum in Oklahoma and Ohio and basically a tie in Michigan and Georgia.

With his money and ground operation you would back Romney to squeak ahead in the two states where he is tied (though I do remain a bit skeptical he will win Georgia). That would him give him wins in Arizona and Michigan with huge momentum for Super Tuesdsay. Ohio hasn't been heavily polled and I am sure Romney will invest a lot of money and attention there so he could possibly turn things around there also. If he wins Arizona, Michigan, Georgia, Ohio and Virginia, the race is probably over after Super Tuesday.

However if Santorum manges to hang on in Ohio, win Oklahoma and run close in Michigan and Georgia, he will still have a fighting shot especially if Newt gets knocked out after Super Tuesday. And it's not inconceivable that Santorum could pull off Michigan and Georgia which would almost make him the front runner. Michigan is huge because a Santorum win there would likely cause enough social conservatives to bolt from Newt and give him Georgia as well.

That is why the last debate was so huge but it appears that Santorum couldn't do the job. He probably needs Romney to blunder in the next few days to stop his momentum in Michigan.

[Lantern]

Romney has established a clear lead in Michigan though he has fallen back in Georgia. Santorum's best hope probably is to come a strong second in Michigan and persuade enough Gingrich voters to switch to him as the only candidate who can stop Romney. If he can win Georgia, Ohio and Oklahoma and knock Newt out he is still in decent shape. However Romney has a knack of grinding out wins from behind in big states like Florida and now probably Michigan and he will certainly try again in Ohio.

[Crane]

Romney wins by saturating the problem with money. If need be he can do it with his own pocket change. I do not believe that will gain him electability.

Crane

[Lantern]

Newt has opened up a reasonable lead in Georgia so he should survive at least for some time. Meanwhile Ohio has narrowed with a 7 point Santorum lead in the latest poll. This is the most important race on Super Tuesday and hopefully we will get regular polls from now on. While Romney has recovered in Michigan, his momentum has stalled and he is still only up by just two points. It's not inconceivable that Santorum could pull off an upset though probably Romney's ground game will win the day. Of course in terms of delegates a narrow win in Michigan won't mean much.

[Jas09]

Michigan is now so close that it looks reasonably likely that Democratic cross-over voters could give Santorum the win. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Probably laugh.

[Lantern]

Apparently even Santorum is robocalling (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/dirty-trick-santorum-targets-michigan-dems-with-robobcall-that-sounds-like-it-came-from-uaw.php)Democrats to vote for him. I am not sure whether GOP primary voters will like this particularly if he ekes out a narrow win. Still Michigan is going right to the wire and clearly each campaign will strain for every advantage. A narrow popular win may not matter that much for the delegate breakup which as per a Nate Silver post (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/examining-michigans-delegate-math/)is quite complicated but it's probably going to matter a lot for momentum for Super Tuesday.

Speaking of which there is a poll out for Tennessee which shows a 20 point Santorum lead. I don't think even Romney's attack machine will be good enough to claw him back over there and in Oklahoma and he has a massive lead in Virginia so Ohio may be the only race which is up for grabs though of course it's a massive prize.

[Maus Magill]

Is Santorum on the Virginia ballot? I thought that was just Romney and Paul.

[Jas09]

Correct. He means that Romney has a big lead in VA. So Super Tuesday comes down to Romney winning a non-competitive VA primary and Santorum winning the Southern states, with only Ohio being interesting.

Of course, one could also argue that the nominee to win Ohio is pretty much exactly the candidate the GOP should want in the general, since that seems to me to be very high on the "tipping point" list.

[Lantern]

Ah yes, I had actually forgotten. I was wondering why Romney had such a massive lead in Virginia and it's of course because his main competitors aren't on the ballot. That makes Ohio all the more important. Romney really doesn't want to come out of Super Tuesday with just a Virginia win.

[Crane]

So, if Newt drops out, Santorum may be resurgent. But, now Palin is dropping hints. Could there be one more clown in the car?

Crane

[Onomatopoeia]

So, if Newt drops out, Santorum may be resurgent. But, now Palin is dropping hints. Could there be one more clown in the car?

CraneNo. Palin's a narcissistic, yet lazy know-nothing. All she wants is for people to continue talking about her.

At this point, I doubt many die-hard, true-believing, Tea Party loving conservatives take Palin seriously anymore.

ETA: I changed my mind. Palin does know something; she knows how to stretch her 15 minutes farther than almost anyone.

[Lantern]

The Alabama and Mississippi races are pretty murky. After Super Tuesday I thought Santorum would win them easily perhaps knocking Gingrich out of the race. However polls indicate otherwise with Gingrich and Romney tying and Santorum a little way behind. However we only have a few polls and Nate Silver has a long post (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/polling-in-deep-south-has-posed-challenges/?gwh=AB0579A65D842874FCE4508C9C5861A9)about the challenges of polling in the deep South.

A Romney win would greatly reduce doubts about the breadth of his appeal within the Republican party. He probably wouldn't mind a Gingrich win which would keep him in the race dividing conservative votes. The only scenario that would have worried him: Santorum winning heavily and knocking out Gingrich doesn't appear likely at this point unless the polls are heavily off the mark.

[Crane]

Handicapping is still in order. Romney is only able to buy 35% or less of the far right vote. Even he does not have the funds to outspend Obama 3 to 1.

So, will the Republican establishment accept such a weak candidate? If not, who the White Night (or last guy in the clown car)?

Crane

[Marley23]

Romney is the guy the Republican establishment likes. He'll get some of the far right vote if he gets nominated, and it'll be up to him to make sure they show up and vote for him - since at the end of the day it'll be him or Obama.

[Marley23]

Meanwhile, Romney won the Puerto Rico primary and it looks like he got more than 80 percent of the vote and all 20 delegates. Santorum wasn't going to win there anyway, but I guess his strategy of telling them they can't be a state unless they learn English didn't work.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I particularly enjoyed the part where he based his position on nonexistent federal law.

[Crane]

Maybe it's not too late for Tebow to jump in the Clown car.

Crane

[5 time champ]

Actually, too early- Tebow won't reach the Constitutional age of 35 until the 2024 presidential election cycle.

[Crane]

Rats!

Crane

[Measure for Measure]

Some argue that Romney had it in the bag as early as last summer. That well may be so.

But mark your calenders. It's late March. The bigwigs have begun to circle the wagons around the presumptive nominee, Mitt Willard Romney. GWBush endorsed him. Rubio is shilling for him on national television. Tea Party hack Senator Jim DeMint delivered his blessing last week. Newt Gingrich is reduced to hoping for a brokered convention, where his awesome speech making/demagoguery wows the delegates and hands him the Presidency by popular acclaim. Santorum is being smacked down by the elites when he gets out of line with his comparisons between Romney and Obama.

The rank and file are getting the message. Nate Silver puts Romney's odds at winning winner-take-all Wisconsin above 90%. I think we can say that Romney locked the deal in late March 2012. The message to the Republican primary voter is clear: obey. Get in line and do what you're told.

FWIW, intrade puts Romney's chances at 93%: I'm a little surprised that it isn't north of 95%.

[Marley23]

Santorum is basically conceding that not only will he lose in Wisconsin tomorrow (along with Maryland and DC), Romney's going to win just about everything this month: Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island all vote on April 24. Santorum thinks he can compete in Pennsylvania, obviously, but that's about it. He's talking about a big comeback in May, blah blah blah. I guess the question will be whether or not Santorum can win Pennsylvania and justify staying in the race - and I mean those as two separate questions. He's already too far behind to have a real shot at winning, and if Romney wins seven or eight contests this month, Santorum doesn't have much of a case for continuing to campaign.

[RTFirefly]

Santorum is basically conceding that not only will he lose in Wisconsin tomorrow (along with Maryland and DC), Romney's going to win just about everything this month: Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island all vote on April 24. Santorum thinks he can compete in Pennsylvania, obviously, but that's about it. He's talking about a big comeback in May, blah blah blah. I guess the question will be whether or not Santorum can win Pennsylvania and justify staying in the race - and I mean those as two separate questions. He's already too far behind to have a real shot at winning, and if Romney wins seven or eight contests this month, Santorum doesn't have much of a case for continuing to campaign.Ah, but how are you going to stop him? He doesn't have to have much of a case, he just has to have barely enough money to keep going.

Of course, the rest of us don't have to continue to pay attention to him.

The fun part, though, is noticing how little enthusiasm the recent wave of Romney endorsers have brought to the task. DeMint and Rubio and all know that Romney's wrapped it up, but they still can't manage to get more than lukewarm about the prospect, even as they endorse him.

[Marley23]

Ah, but how are you going to stop him? He doesn't have to have much of a case, he just has to have barely enough money to keep going.
I'm saying it's only going to get harder for him to raise money- or justify his presence in the race to donors or anyone else whose opinion he might be interested in.

[Quartz]

Ah, but how are you going to stop him? He doesn't have to have much of a case, he just has to have barely enough money to keep going.

But Santorum's really playing for 2016, isn't he?

[Marley23]

But he's really playing for 2016, isn't he?
No, he's just losing.

[Onomatopoeia]

But Santorum's really playing for 2016, isn't he?

No, he's just losing.I agree with Marley23; I don't see Santorum running in 2016. In fact, I'll step just a few feet out on a limb and say that after Obama wins in November the Republican party will reassess, if ever so slightly, and will push for an actual viable candidate to go up against [currently unknown Democrat] in 2016.

[jayjay]

But Santorum's really playing for 2016, isn't he?

No, 2016 is when the real GOP candidates are going to run (Rubio, Christie, Daniels, possibly Ryan). Now, understand that I consider the "real" GOP candidates to be just as bad as the Kooky Klown Kar we've got making the primary rounds now. But the big names are coming out in 2016 and they're going shade Santorum into "Rick Who?" territory. Santorum only got as far as he did this year because the big names (other than Romney, who's running this year because "it's his turn" and pretty much his last shot at the nom) knew they weren't going to be guaranteed a win against Obama in November (because they actually recognize that the economy isn't something that you can predict that far ahead), and none of them want the "loser" label like Romney's likely to get after this election, or like Dole got after 1996, or like Gore got after 2000. It's one thing to lose the nomination of your party...that gets forgotten and you can try again without major prejudice against you. But losing the Presidency in the general knocks you out for good if you're major-party.

[Marley23]

DC and Maryland have already been called for Romney, and the exit polls look good for him in Wisconsin. In fact CNN has called Wisconsin for Romney, too. Oh, Romney will be reciting a lot of public domain patriotic songs tonight.

[Marley23]

And I think everybody has now called Wisconsin for Romney. No big comebacks and no all-night tabulations this time. Everything was in the bag before 10 p.m. Eastern.

[Steve MB]

But Santorum's really playing for 2016, isn't he?

That's almost as delusional. After Romney gets his head handed to him in the general election, the party will be looking for someone to blame, and the guy who insisted on dragging out the primaries and leaving the already-inevitable nominee further bloodied is a rather obvious candidate. I mean, you can't expect the party leadership to blame itself, can you?

[Typo Knig]

The party leadership may blame each other. From my POV that would be a circular firing squad worth watching.

What the R team should do is re-evaluate their goals, strategy, and tactics relative to the electorate and make appropriate changes. What they are most likely to do is decide they weren't insanely conservative enough and move so far to the right that Poe's Law becomes a minimal statement.

[Gyrate]

That's almost as delusional. After Romney gets his head handed to him in the general election, the party will be looking for someone to blame, and the guy who insisted on dragging out the primaries and leaving the already-inevitable nominee further bloodied is a rather obvious candidate. I mean, you can't expect the party leadership to blame itself, can you?
Which is why we're seeing people like GWB dragged out to give lukewarm endorsements to Romney. It's not that Romney needs the support; it's that the party leadership are saying "We don't support Santorum and anything he says or does is not our fault". Inevitably Santorum will be the guy with the "Kick Me" sign on his back at the GOP convention, and when Romney loses in November (assuming he does) Santorum will get the blame rightly or wrongly.

[gamerunknown]

So Mitt Romney will leave Santorum trailing behind. Do you think Santorum staying in for so long will damage Romney and force the Republican party leadership to clean up the mess? How far do you think the Republicans will go to avoid Santorum? Will they shift to the left and endorse contraception? Or to the right and attempt to ban anal sex entirely?

[Quartz]

No, he's just losing.

The two are not exclusive!

[mkecane]

Something funny I realized last night: I didn't see one pro-Santorum ad, either on tv or online (Milwaukee area), in the past few weeks. I saw plenty of pro-Romney ads, and I saw anti-Romney ads. Last night, more than an hour after the polls had closed, I finally saw a pro-Santorum ad on the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel website suggesting I get to the poll on April 3rd. Heh.

[Gyrate]

So Mitt Romney will leave Santorum trailing behind. Do you think Santorum staying in for so long will damage Romney and force the Republican party leadership to clean up the mess? How far do you think the Republicans will go to avoid Santorum? Will they shift to the left and endorse contraception? Or to the right and attempt to ban anal sex entirely?Oi - stop that, you.

[RTFirefly]

No, 2016 is when the real GOP candidates are going to run (Rubio, Christie, Daniels, possibly Ryan). Now, understand that I consider the "real" GOP candidates to be just as bad as the Kooky Klown Kar we've got making the primary rounds now. But the big names are coming out in 2016 and they're going shade Santorum into "Rick Who?" territory. Santorum only got as far as he did this year because the big names (other than Romney[) stayed on the sidelines.]This. If Santorum runs in 2016, he'll be an also-ran.

It's one thing to lose the nomination of your party...that gets forgotten and you can try again without major prejudice against you. But losing the Presidency in the general knocks you out for good if you're major-party.One unfortunate exception: Richard Nixon.

And obviously this is a guessing game, but IMHO, if Reagan had won the GOP nomination in 1976 but lost to Carter in the general, I doubt it would have hurt his chances for either the nomination or the election itself in the rematch.

But on the whole, you're right: losing a full Presidential campaign exposes a candidate's limitations like nothing else. Once a Presidential candidate loses in the general election, even a good chunk of that candidate's most enthusiastic supporters are ready for someone else next time.

[Marley23]

The two are not exclusive!
He's not in it to get recognition and raise his profile for 2016. Through an absurd series of events, he's one of the leading candidates this year. He's not going to win, but he isn't playing the long game. If I'd told you in 2010 that some of the leading contenders for the Republicans - not just candidates, people who got some press as the frontrunner - included Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, and a pizza company CEO you probably hadn't heard of, you wouldn't say "oh, they're just in it for 2016." You'd say "Wow, the field must be terrible," and you'd be right. And over the next month or so he'll just be alienating important people in the party anyway, which wouldn't help his chances in 2016 even if they existed.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Actually, too early- Tebow won't reach the Constitutional age of 35 until the 2024 presidential election cycle.
He's also not registered to vote.

[Steve MB]

So Do you think Santorum staying in for so long will damage Romney

The longer it stays in, the greater the risk of a nasty infection.

[E-Sabbath]

I think the guy being groomed for 2016 is Paul Ryan. Sigh.

[Marley23]

Here's the AP story on the status of the race. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ihZ3RAe0OT7_f5m64V5k83hfuuhg?docId=f81bba9034804452a2baa5e2748e40d7) The main points: Santorum cannot win outright, and Romney is on pace to clinch the nomination on June 5 based on his current pace (he's received 58 percent of the delegates alloted so far). I don't think this takes into account the fact that Romney is likely to do much better than that in the upcoming races. Based on the schedule I'm not sure he can lock it up much earlier than that, but either way, Romney is pulling away and the finish line is in view.

[BrainGlutton]

Here's the AP story on the status of the race. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ihZ3RAe0OT7_f5m64V5k83hfuuhg?docId=f81bba9034804452a2baa5e2748e40d7) The main points: Santorum cannot win outright, and Romney is on pace to clinch the nomination on June 5 based on his current pace (he's received 58 percent of the delegates alloted so far). I don't think this takes into account the fact that Romney is likely to do much better than that in the upcoming races. Based on the schedule I'm not sure he can lock it up much earlier than that, but either way, Romney is pulling away and the finish line is in view.

Does that completely rule out the possibility of a convention floor-fight? :(

If so, when are Santorum, Gingrich and Paul going to accept the inevitable and drop out? I've often read in this forum predictions that none of them will before the convention.

[Marley23]

Does that completely rule out the possibility of a convention floor-fight? :(
If it makes you feel better, you could remind yourself there was really no chance of that to begin with, so this doesn't change things very much. Nor will the wins Romney is about to get in all those East Coast primaries on April 24. (This thread might get quiet until then.) The thing about dropping out always comes down to their donors and whether they feel like continuing to fund the candidates or not. Maybe Santo will give up if Romney beats him in Pennsylvania, but he can at least say that there are primaries in May that he should win. I guess it's more likely he won't quit until Romney officially seals the deal. I think Newt is probably close to admitting the inevitable: it's not going to be Newt and Santo combining to stop Romney; it's down to just Santorum and Romney, and even Santorum's chance at winning is theoretical. I would be very surprised if Paul called it quits since he really has nothing else to do with his time. I mean, there's Congress, but...

[Steve MB]

The math (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates) is pretty clear: of the 1144 needed, Dog-on-Car had 658 while Man-on-Dog has 281. (For completists. Pork-on-the-Moon has 145 and Spin-Banknotes-into-Gold has 51).

At this point, the main strategic decision for is whether to pile on in Pennsylvania to pressure Frothymix into dropping out (or humiliate him for being stubborn).

[Crane]

Last clown out of the clown car was Romney after all (Gingrich is stuck in the car)

Crane