Plan B Forum

Obama:3

Romney: 2
Huntsman: 2
Paul: 1
Gingrich: 1

No love for Santorum?

Santorum is a mess in Dixville Notch!

Santorum continues to slide in Hart's Location:

Romney 5
Paul 4
Huntsman 2
Gingrich 1
Perry 1

Next headline:

Santorum running behind Romney, Paul, Huntsman and Gingrich; NH voters disgusted.

I'm in VT today and drove up through NH early this morning. The only signs I saw along the way are Ron Paul REVOLUTION signs (with the L turned around and EVOL in red). I figured he would do well up here, especially with the young uns at the colleges.

What, 9 dix in Dixville Notch, and no Santorum?

It really begs the question of why NH is permitted to be in a position of such great influence in Presidential elections. Their population is representative of whom, exactly? Certainly not the U.S. of A.

It probably won't happen in my lifetime, but the primaries should all be on the first Tuesday in May, for the entire country. Iowa? New Hampshire? South Carolina? Florida?

This is absurd.

Hey!

My ancestors on my father's side came from Manchester NH.

We'll forgive you dales!

It really begs the question of why NH is permitted to be in a position of such great influence in Presidential elections. Their population is representative of whom, exactly? Certainly not the U.S. of A.

It probably won't happen in my lifetime, but the primaries should all be on the first Tuesday in May, for the entire country. Iowa? New Hampshire? South Carolina? Florida?

This is absurd.

It is not absurd, but it could be improved. There are good reasons to keep the same general format, though I would support changing the order of the primaries each cycle so that Iowa and New Hampshire don't dominate the early process every time (though there are as good a choice as any state). Having primaries in small states allows candidates without a ton of money to compete with the big dogs. The system becomes a devil take the hindmost, with the weaker candidates dropping out and their support drifting to stronger candidates. The long season becomes a vetting process, showing who can stand up to the pressure over an extended period of time, which is a good trait to have in a potential president.

A single primary day has its rationale, but no doubt will favor the very few well-funded candidates. For Republicans, it would likely skew the vote even more to the advantage of that year's moderate candidate -- something D's and the MSM probably would like, but most R's would not. Jay Cost at the Weekly Standard had a good explanation of how the current system favors a moderate R, who gets lots of positive press attention early on and little competition, while the conservative candidates split the core party vote: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mor ... 16072.html

A person like Rick Santorum would have no chance in a national primary, and we would have the spectacle of gadflys like Cain and Bachmann being distractions right up to the end. The ultimate nominee might win with 25-30% of the vote, rather developing a national consensus and momentum that makes them the majority nominee by the end of the process.

Since nomination requires getting support of 50%+1 of the delegates, it seems unlikely that any one candidate could achieve that by the end of the primaries unless some way of shaking out the lower tier candidates occurs, as happens in the current process. That increases the likelihood of a brokered convention in which candidates of similar affinity can rally around the one of their number that has the most chance of coming out on top. But since that would likely up end the delegate count coming out of the primaries, it doesn't do much to build a national consensus or momentum.

Rotating the early primaries among the states makes the most sense, and it can be enforced by refusing to seat delegates from states that breach the established order. That will create a backlash from Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, etc. the first couple of times around, but they will eventually have to live with it.

Well, the final results from New Hampshire are in:

Romney was rejected by more than 60% of Republicans in (arguably) his own state; everyone including Ron Paul now agrees that Ron Paul is a lunatic; Huntsman is Not Romney but still a terrible Chinese Satan-worshipper; and Gingrich = Santorum.

I think that about covers it.

It is not entirely certain that a single, national primary would exclude impecunious candidates. NO CANDIDATE would be able to cover the airwaves in any meaningful way, except in large markets, but the costs there would be breathtaking. Any "credible" candidate - say a governor of a large state - would be included in the debates regardless of his financial backing. And the "debates" would be much more important in securing the nomination than advertising and glad-handing.

It is likely that no candidate would garner the 50%+1, so ultimately the candidates would be chosen at the conventions, which is best. The Party Elders have the knowledge and insight to select candidates who both reflect the policies of the party and are "electable." 2008 was typical of the current process, and neither party nominated the candidate whom the convention delegates would have picked, had they been free to do so. Clinton would have won easily on the Democrat side, and "anyone but" would have won among the Republicans.

I choose this opportunity to again state my STRONG disapproval of the so-called "open" primaries. They are so susceptible to abuse that it astounds me that any state would tolerate them.

Sue U wrote:Well, the final results from New Hampshire are in:

Romney was rejected by more than 60% of Republicans in (arguably) his own state; everyone including Ron Paul now agrees that Ron Paul is a lunatic; Huntsman is Not Romney but still a terrible Chinese Satan-worshipper; and Gingrich = Santorum.

I think that about covers it.

Great post!

Huntsman improved to third. The Republicans actually have a chance to nominate someone who isn't a chronic liar or nutcase.

yrs,
rubato

Once again, the fantastic Romney luck continues to hold...

The NH results have set the table for him in South Carolina in the most advantageous way possible, (except maybe for Huntsman staying in, since he might pull some moderate GOP voters from Mitt)

In South Carolina, Romney will be facing once again a divided opposition on his right, split between three candidates, (Gingrich, Perry and Santorum) all of whom have the cash to run credible campaign efforts, virtually assuring that the Not Romney vote will once again be deeply split, this time in a state that the ABM forces desperately needed to have a single standard bearer.

If Romney can just finish in the high 20s (something he should be able to do; he's had the lead in SC in every poll since Iowa) he should be able to win South Carolina, a feat that would have been unthinkable a month ago when he faced an opposition that was coalescing around Gingrich (a poll in early Dec had Mitt trailing Newt 43% to 20%) If Romney get's an outright win in South Carolina it's pretty much all over.

Here are the SC poll results:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... html#polls

In Florida, where he was also trailing badly early last month, Romney is in great shape. The latest Rasmussen Poll has him up to 41% support with Gingrich at 19 and Santorum at 15.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -1597.html

And even though a lot of GOP pundits disagree, I also think that Gingrich's decision to go at Romney on Bain Capital now is a blessing for him. Better that he get all his bobbled, tone-deaf responses on this out of the way now and put together a polished positive narrative, (and there is a positive story to tell about the overall record of Bain Capital...I understand as a start, they're going to be coming out with ads featuring ordinary folks who's jobs were saved by the company) then that he be going through this ugly process next October in the general election campaign.

I think the most likely beneficiary of all the anti-Romney business record bashing in South Carolina is Rick Santorum, who isn't participating in it, but who has a big TV ad presence of his own.

Negative ads work, but the history shows that where there are multiple candidates, they tend to also drive down support for the people running them to the benefit of of third candidates.

If any of the Not-Romneys manages to finish ahead of Romney in SC, I expect it will be Santorum.

I disagree; I think the biggest beneficiary will be Stephen Colbert, who's already polling ahead of Huntsman.

ETA:

BTW, the internet's girlfriend Nate Silver sees a potentially very tight race in SC, with Romney getting little if any bounce out of New Hampshire.

The discussion about Bain is nothing new -- we heard it when he ran for Governor, and in 2008 as well. Vulture capitalism at its finest. Same story, but hits harder given the economic times and the ongoing lack of jobs. Regardless what narrative you tell about Bain, the fact that it (and Romney) profited from the destruction of businesses and jobs isn't going to help.