Results are now in for today's Republican presidential primaries in Mississippi and Alabama. In both races, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum came in first, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich came in a close second and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney came in third, a few percentage points back. Representative Ron Paul finished far back in fourth place with single-digit percentages of the vote in both states. Look up the specific numbers here.
Here's what it means: For Rick Santorum, it is great news. He has now firmly assumed the role of the main conservative alternative to Romney. For Newt Gingrich, the air has officially left his balloon. If the Southern regional candidate cannot win in the South, then what is his rationale for going on? He was close, but in his home region he needed better. Gingrich announced he would stay in the race but we are likely to see his numbers rapidly deflate in upcoming contests. For Mitt Romney it was another opportunity lost. He remains the front runner, but also remains vulnerable. Wins in both Southern states would have basically locked up the nomination for him. A win in one would have put his opponents on life support. Instead, the fight will go on. For Paul, the handwriting is on the wall as he slips into irrelevance.
Even if Gingrich stays in the race, his power to siphon votes away from Santorum, now the Un-romney, will have been severely weakened. Santorum will get a better shot at a true one on one against him next Tuesday in Illinois. A Romney victory would once again fire up his inevitability train and could well lead to putting the nomination effectively in his pocket by mid-April. Romney will outspend Santorum by several magnitudes to one, but the Pennsylvanian will have the heart of the social conservatives. It will be a real showdown on March 20. If Santorum can win, expect panic in the GOP establishment. He came close in Ohio and Michigan, so this is a real possibility with fewer anti-Romney votes being split with Gingrich.
A Santorum victory in Illinois is a real possibility and could well lead to either a wild race to the finish between the two or even a war of attrition in which neither secures the necessary delegates to hold a majority when the party convention opens in Tampa. The first brokered convention since 1952 would certainly be a sight to see, and not one for the squeamish.
Showing posts with label Republican Primaries 2012. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republican Primaries 2012. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Monday, January 9, 2012
Republican Candidates Hit Romney
Things have gotten lively in New Hampshire the last couple of days. In the Republican primary there tomorrow Mitt Romney is widely expected to win (see New Hampshire polling info) in a state that borders Massachusetts, where he once was governor. The rest of the field is angling for second place. Still, the unRomneys have taken a break from savaging each other and are now turning their fire on the frontrunner.
Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman and Rick Perry have all lashed out at Romney. Word is out that Gingrich's "unaffiliated" Super PAC has received a $5 million gift from Las Vegas tycoon Sheldon Adelson to hit Romney for destroying jobs during his days as CEO of Bain Capital. Romney didn't help himself any on this score by today declaring, "I like being able to fire people who provide services to me."
The real dynamics of this may play out in South Carolina, where Romney currently polls about 10 points ahead of Santorum and Gingrich. For the conservatives to have a chance, they really need to narrow the field. Huntsman doesn't figure to be much of a factor in South Carolina and it will likely be Perry's last stand. If Romney can hang on there, winning against a crowded field with 30% of the vote, his inevitability campaign may well start to run the table and effectively lock things up in February. On the other hand, if Perry, Huntsman and one of the others drops out after that, the survivor might have a chance to get Romney in a one on one and start to come up with a win here and there.
Either way, it certainly is interesting to see conservative Republican pols smacking a fellow GOPer for being a heartless businessman willing to sacrifice the livelihoods of regular workers to pad his own profits. If this seems a productive line of attack for them to take in a Republican primary campaign, just imagine what nominee Romney would likely face from the Democrats in a national campaign.
Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman and Rick Perry have all lashed out at Romney. Word is out that Gingrich's "unaffiliated" Super PAC has received a $5 million gift from Las Vegas tycoon Sheldon Adelson to hit Romney for destroying jobs during his days as CEO of Bain Capital. Romney didn't help himself any on this score by today declaring, "I like being able to fire people who provide services to me."
The real dynamics of this may play out in South Carolina, where Romney currently polls about 10 points ahead of Santorum and Gingrich. For the conservatives to have a chance, they really need to narrow the field. Huntsman doesn't figure to be much of a factor in South Carolina and it will likely be Perry's last stand. If Romney can hang on there, winning against a crowded field with 30% of the vote, his inevitability campaign may well start to run the table and effectively lock things up in February. On the other hand, if Perry, Huntsman and one of the others drops out after that, the survivor might have a chance to get Romney in a one on one and start to come up with a win here and there.
Either way, it certainly is interesting to see conservative Republican pols smacking a fellow GOPer for being a heartless businessman willing to sacrifice the livelihoods of regular workers to pad his own profits. If this seems a productive line of attack for them to take in a Republican primary campaign, just imagine what nominee Romney would likely face from the Democrats in a national campaign.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Republican Field: Can Any of Them Win?
Saturday night six Republican hopefuls met in Des Moines for their latest debate. You can read the full transcript here. There will likely be only one more such encounter before the Iowa caucuses, the first official test of strength in the nomination process, are held on January 3, 2012.
Newt Gingrich, as the new front runner in the polls, came under attack from his fellow competitors, as did Mitt Romney. See polling data here. Though he lied several times to obfuscate his former record of support for such measures as climate cap and trade and an individual mandate to buy health care, and drew belly laughs trying to explain his eight-figure K Street lobbying haul as simple "private sector free enterprise," most observers felt Gingrich held his own well enough to retain his late momentum toward victory in Iowa. See the Fact Check report on instances of untruthfulness in the debate here. Suffice it to say this field did not win any awards for accuracy last night.
What stands out more than anything at this time are the glaring deficiencies of all the remaining Republican candidates. One-time front runners Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, along with Rick Santorum, have sought to appeal to the conservative Evangelical Christian vote. Yet Bachmann's and Perry's stumbles have evaporated their following, while Santorum has yet to be able to generate any. None of these three gives evidence of being ready to assume the office they seek.
Jon Huntsman, a fellow who tries to talk sense, suffers the handicap in the Republican electorate of being a former appointee of the Obama Administration as Ambassador to China. Though he is actually quite conservative, the former Utah governor also suffers from sounding far too reasonable when GOP primary voters are howling for red meat rhetoric. Huntsman also gets stuck with being identified as the second-fiddle "other Mormon" in the field behind Mitt Romney.
That leaves the two current leaders, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Romney's Achilles' heel is certainly his reputation as a serial flip-flopper. Gingrich and the others have zeroed in on this, and were he to win the nomination you can rest assured the Obama campaign would have a field day on this score. He is competent to be president, but comes across as rather a patrician wimp, strangely reminiscent of the forty-first president, George H. W. Bush. He might be the most electable general election candidate in the GOP primary field, but he is viewed as too moderate by the typical Republican primary voter.
Newt Gingrich assuredly knows enough to be president, and now has a sizable lead among likely GOP voters in all the national polls. Yet he too has major weaknesses. He has reversed course on the issues perhaps even more than Romney, if that is possible. He is mean and shoots from the hip like a talk radio pundit, making outrageous statements often at odds with reality. His ethics lapses are the stuff of legend. And Gingrich has made over $100 million as a K Street Washington lobbyist for firms the Tea Party excoriates for "crony capitalism." This has all come after he was drummed out of the House Speakership and fined $300,000 by an ethics committee run by his own party in 1998. As Joan Walsh of Salon writes of Newt, "even his baggage has baggage."
Though President Obama should be regarded as vulnerable given the slow recovery of the economy, this field of GOP challengers will be challenged indeed to beat him come next November. And their biggest obstacles might well be themselves.
Newt Gingrich, as the new front runner in the polls, came under attack from his fellow competitors, as did Mitt Romney. See polling data here. Though he lied several times to obfuscate his former record of support for such measures as climate cap and trade and an individual mandate to buy health care, and drew belly laughs trying to explain his eight-figure K Street lobbying haul as simple "private sector free enterprise," most observers felt Gingrich held his own well enough to retain his late momentum toward victory in Iowa. See the Fact Check report on instances of untruthfulness in the debate here. Suffice it to say this field did not win any awards for accuracy last night.
What stands out more than anything at this time are the glaring deficiencies of all the remaining Republican candidates. One-time front runners Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, along with Rick Santorum, have sought to appeal to the conservative Evangelical Christian vote. Yet Bachmann's and Perry's stumbles have evaporated their following, while Santorum has yet to be able to generate any. None of these three gives evidence of being ready to assume the office they seek.
Jon Huntsman, a fellow who tries to talk sense, suffers the handicap in the Republican electorate of being a former appointee of the Obama Administration as Ambassador to China. Though he is actually quite conservative, the former Utah governor also suffers from sounding far too reasonable when GOP primary voters are howling for red meat rhetoric. Huntsman also gets stuck with being identified as the second-fiddle "other Mormon" in the field behind Mitt Romney.
That leaves the two current leaders, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Romney's Achilles' heel is certainly his reputation as a serial flip-flopper. Gingrich and the others have zeroed in on this, and were he to win the nomination you can rest assured the Obama campaign would have a field day on this score. He is competent to be president, but comes across as rather a patrician wimp, strangely reminiscent of the forty-first president, George H. W. Bush. He might be the most electable general election candidate in the GOP primary field, but he is viewed as too moderate by the typical Republican primary voter.
Newt Gingrich assuredly knows enough to be president, and now has a sizable lead among likely GOP voters in all the national polls. Yet he too has major weaknesses. He has reversed course on the issues perhaps even more than Romney, if that is possible. He is mean and shoots from the hip like a talk radio pundit, making outrageous statements often at odds with reality. His ethics lapses are the stuff of legend. And Gingrich has made over $100 million as a K Street Washington lobbyist for firms the Tea Party excoriates for "crony capitalism." This has all come after he was drummed out of the House Speakership and fined $300,000 by an ethics committee run by his own party in 1998. As Joan Walsh of Salon writes of Newt, "even his baggage has baggage."
Though President Obama should be regarded as vulnerable given the slow recovery of the economy, this field of GOP challengers will be challenged indeed to beat him come next November. And their biggest obstacles might well be themselves.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Perry's Extremism on Full Display
A few days on the campaign trail have served notice that Texas Governor Rick Perry is about as extreme a right winger as it is possible to be. Since he is the current leader for his party's nomination in the polls it also shows how far toward the nutty fringe a Republican has to go these days to win the GOP primary electorate. One would think that some of these positions ought to make it exceedingly difficult for him to win a general election should he be the Republican standard bearer in 2012, as I believe he is likely to be.
Perry shows his antipathy to modern science by characterizing evolution as, "just a theory with a lot of gaps in it," and pollution-caused global warming as a "hoax" ginned up by a worldwide conspiracy of meteorology nerds. Rejection of the fact and data-based universe is apparently an article of faith in Republican ranks these days. It's hard not to wonder what such a stance would have on America's ability to compete in global technology should this latter-day know-nothingism penetrate into the pinnacle of leadership of the nation itself. Either Perry does not believe in science when it conflicts with his prejudices or he is prepared to babble nonsense in order to tell the ignorant what they want to hear. Neither alternative provides much comfort to the prospect of a Perry presidency.
The Governor is also adept at reading things into the Constitution that are not there. He has written in his book "Fed Up," published in 2010, that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional--not just that he disagrees with them, but that the Framers in 1787 somehow banned these programs. To refer to these most popular of federal programs as "scams" and "Ponzi schemes" does take guts. One can only imagine the effect on the senior citizen vote after a few months of publicity of these views.
He repeats the conservative canard that the Constitution was written to "limit government," and protect "states rights" when any eighth-grader can tell you it was to increase federal power over the states after the weakness and disunity of the former Articles of Confederation. His statement, referring to Texas, that, "When we came into the union in 1845 one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that" has exposed either his revanchist Confederate sympathies or a willingness to play to a constituency disposed to dismember the United States--a rather blatant violation of the Presidential oath of office, by which he would, if elected, swear to defend the Constitution "against all enemies."
He has topped these antics off by threatening Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, (originally a Bush appointee, by the way) with accusations of treason and veiled intimations of violence "we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas," if he should deign to differ with Perry on monetary policy. This bull in the china shop buffoonery is what apparently captures the imagination of Republican voters these days, as Perry stands at the head of the current opinion polls. It is not, however, what will win a majority of voting Americans in a national election.
Perry shows his antipathy to modern science by characterizing evolution as, "just a theory with a lot of gaps in it," and pollution-caused global warming as a "hoax" ginned up by a worldwide conspiracy of meteorology nerds. Rejection of the fact and data-based universe is apparently an article of faith in Republican ranks these days. It's hard not to wonder what such a stance would have on America's ability to compete in global technology should this latter-day know-nothingism penetrate into the pinnacle of leadership of the nation itself. Either Perry does not believe in science when it conflicts with his prejudices or he is prepared to babble nonsense in order to tell the ignorant what they want to hear. Neither alternative provides much comfort to the prospect of a Perry presidency.
The Governor is also adept at reading things into the Constitution that are not there. He has written in his book "Fed Up," published in 2010, that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional--not just that he disagrees with them, but that the Framers in 1787 somehow banned these programs. To refer to these most popular of federal programs as "scams" and "Ponzi schemes" does take guts. One can only imagine the effect on the senior citizen vote after a few months of publicity of these views.
He repeats the conservative canard that the Constitution was written to "limit government," and protect "states rights" when any eighth-grader can tell you it was to increase federal power over the states after the weakness and disunity of the former Articles of Confederation. His statement, referring to Texas, that, "When we came into the union in 1845 one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that" has exposed either his revanchist Confederate sympathies or a willingness to play to a constituency disposed to dismember the United States--a rather blatant violation of the Presidential oath of office, by which he would, if elected, swear to defend the Constitution "against all enemies."
He has topped these antics off by threatening Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, (originally a Bush appointee, by the way) with accusations of treason and veiled intimations of violence "we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas," if he should deign to differ with Perry on monetary policy. This bull in the china shop buffoonery is what apparently captures the imagination of Republican voters these days, as Perry stands at the head of the current opinion polls. It is not, however, what will win a majority of voting Americans in a national election.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Perry's Entry is GOP Game Changer
The entry of Texas Governor Rick Perry into the Republican presidential field is a game changer. I rate him as odds on to capture the GOP nomination and face President Obama in 2012.
The dynamics of the Republican race are relatively simple. Mitt Romney is the early front runner. He appeals to the business community and the more moderate elements of the Republican coalition. The question to be settled is who will be the more conservative standard bearer to challenge him?
The Iowa Straw Poll, on the strength of some 4,800 votes, vaulted first-place finisher Rep. Michele Bachmann into contention as a prime challenger to Romney. Libertarian and isolationist Congressman Ron Paul finished second. Nobody else farther down the list, which included Tim Pawlenty who dropped out of the race based on a third-place finish, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, John Huntsman or Newt Gingrich has any kind of realistic shot at the nomination.
So it will be Bachmann and Perry who battle it out for the anti-Romney mantle. Both are far right-wingers who appeal to both Tea Party fiscal zealots and evangelical social issues voters. In this contest Bachmann excels at firing up the base with red meat rhetoric. But she will, I believe, not be able to overcome Perry's edge in gubernatorial experience and the kind of country folksiness so valued as authenticity by Republican voters. And make no mistake, Perry is nearly every bit as conservative as Bachmann.
Once the primary season begins Bachmann will likely win the Iowa caucuses. Then Romney will probably take the ensuing New Hampshire primary. In a practical sense, both will need those victories to remain credible. But then Perry will take the South Carolina and Florida primaries on friendly Southern turf and be off to the races. Wins there will take the air out of Bachmann's campaign and leave Perry one on one against Romney. Perry will prevail because in the final analysis Romney is simply not conservative enough for today's Republican electorate. The party veers farther rightward every year and Romney is, in their mind, still tied to the moderate policies he agreed to as Massachusetts governor.
The dynamics of the Republican race are relatively simple. Mitt Romney is the early front runner. He appeals to the business community and the more moderate elements of the Republican coalition. The question to be settled is who will be the more conservative standard bearer to challenge him?
The Iowa Straw Poll, on the strength of some 4,800 votes, vaulted first-place finisher Rep. Michele Bachmann into contention as a prime challenger to Romney. Libertarian and isolationist Congressman Ron Paul finished second. Nobody else farther down the list, which included Tim Pawlenty who dropped out of the race based on a third-place finish, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, John Huntsman or Newt Gingrich has any kind of realistic shot at the nomination.
So it will be Bachmann and Perry who battle it out for the anti-Romney mantle. Both are far right-wingers who appeal to both Tea Party fiscal zealots and evangelical social issues voters. In this contest Bachmann excels at firing up the base with red meat rhetoric. But she will, I believe, not be able to overcome Perry's edge in gubernatorial experience and the kind of country folksiness so valued as authenticity by Republican voters. And make no mistake, Perry is nearly every bit as conservative as Bachmann.
Once the primary season begins Bachmann will likely win the Iowa caucuses. Then Romney will probably take the ensuing New Hampshire primary. In a practical sense, both will need those victories to remain credible. But then Perry will take the South Carolina and Florida primaries on friendly Southern turf and be off to the races. Wins there will take the air out of Bachmann's campaign and leave Perry one on one against Romney. Perry will prevail because in the final analysis Romney is simply not conservative enough for today's Republican electorate. The party veers farther rightward every year and Romney is, in their mind, still tied to the moderate policies he agreed to as Massachusetts governor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)