Five key factors in what happened this weekend in the South Carolina primary, and five key factors in what will occur eight days from now in the Florida primary:
LOOKING BACK One: The rapidity of the Romney collapse. Since the race began to take shape in early-to-mid 2011, Mitt Romney has been mocked for having a glass jaw. In both Iowa and New Hampshire, Romney and his backers could scoff at the claim, pointing out that he had (seemingly) won Iowa and overwhelmingly won New Hampshire, not to mention that polls showed him leading in South Carolina and Florida, as well as nationally. Of the first 40 Republican-primary polls released by any pollster, either nationwide or in any state in 2012, Mitt Romney led 38 of them.
Advertisement
And then — POOF! At one point, Romney led Gingrich by ten percentage points in the Real Clear Politics average; on Saturday he lost by twelve percentage points. Nationally, he led Gingrich by 23 in the Gallup national tracking poll; on Sunday, he led Gingrich by five.
What’s even more striking is that the issues that tripped up Romney were so predictable and, seemingly, mundane — compared with, say, bombshell claims from an ex-wife or claims of sexual harassment or a seemingly off-the-cuff remark that a vaccine causes retardation. Romney was flayed over both the alleged layoffs at companies purchased and managed by Bain Capital, and the issue of his unreleased tax returns. Both of these topics were big issues not merely in Romney’s 2002 gubernatorial campaign, but his 1994 Senate run. How does a candidate get blindsided by 18-year-old handicaps?
Two: How far bashing the mainstream media has taken Newt Gingrich. It was a sly joke on primary night: Will Gingrich thank Marianne Gingrich, Juan Williams, or John King first? But, as with most jokes, we laugh because it contains a kernel of truth.
Juan Williams suggested that, because the African-Americans he heard from were offended by Gingrich’s comments about inner-city youth, the former speaker owed them an apology. Newt slam-dunked it, sneering that liberals cannot handle “facts that are inconvenient,” such as the number of Americans who on food stamps during Obama’s presidency. The knee-jerk accusations of racism are perhaps the aspect of the modern Left that infuriates grassroots conservatives most, and, in Gingrich, they saw the fearless, unapologetic rebuke to that thinking they had been yearning to hear for years.
Marianne Gingrich’s claim, and John King’s opening debate question about it, should have, on paper, created bigger headaches for Gingrich. But the former speaker knows, as almost any Republican with any memory from before 2008 knows, that these stories have a context. Nearly every conservative marveled at the media’s excuse-making for Bill Clinton throughout his presidency, the astonishing disinterest in John Edwards’s philandering on the 2004 campaign trail, and the ridiculous way Eliot Spitzer was seemingly instantly rewarded with a prime-time television show. Newt’s response was, in effect, that the only reason King — and the rest of the media — cares about his ex-wife’s claims is that he is a Republican, not that it is inherently newsworthy.
Of course, Gingrich’s dudgeon leaves a few questions open: If a former spouse of a presidential candidate makes a head-turning claim, should the media not report it? Should they not ask the candidate about it? And, if it’s outrageous to make this topic the first question of the debate, how many minutes into the debate should the subject have been broached?
Gingrich even cast his victory as a message to the media in his victory speech on Saturday night: “In the two debates that we had — here in Myrtle Beach and then in Charleston — people reacted so strongly to the news media. I think it was something very fundamental that I wish the powers that be in the news media would take seriously.”
Jim, you'll need to re-think your fourth point. SC is an open primary. (Current efforts to close the primary include the Greenville County Republican Party's lawsuit and pending legislation.)
McCain garnered a substantial cross-over vote in 2008. This year, I don't think the Dems bothered because they couldn't figure out which vote would create the most damage.
If anybody had motivation to cross over, it would be Ron Paul supporters. So his 13% showing is actually smaller than would be expected by your analysis.
With all due respect, you are entirely incorrect about South Carolina's primary being a "closed" primary. I have NEVER been registered under any political party and voted Saturday with no part affiliation what-so-ever.
Please sign me Non-Partisan in the Palmetto State.
Let's not forget what actually happened in South Carolina. Exit polls show that Evangelical Christians voted overwhelmingly against Mitt. South Carolina was always going to be a stretch for Mitt due to that unique demographic. At least he did much better there than in 2008.
With all due respect, you are entirely incorrect about South Carolina having a "closed" primary. It is as open as a primary can get. I have voted since 1976 and have never been registered as a member or affiliate with any political party. I voted Saturday.
Please sign me, Non-partisan in the Palmetto State.
Pick on Iowa all you want. But 120,000 people is not a small sample, and they end up being the most knowledgeable voters in the entire processes. Is it a big surprise that they end up picking someone different? Maybe someone with more substance than the typical poll tested TV commercial ready candidates? In a different age, the later states would reflect on that choice as maybe having some wisdom in it not available to them. Sigh...
Think about it. Iowa cares about ETHANOL SUBSIDIES. If the state truly cared about nature or the nation, then we would NOT WASTE MONEY on this. Actually cost more than a gallon of gas to make a gallon of ethanol ... and the money is wasted as it increase food prices and is no cleaner than oil, and help lead the way to regional gasoline mixtures and regulations ( thus inflating the price of gas at the pump ).
Jim! Met your dad at a Hilton Head Tea Party event last year. I thought he would have told you we have an open primary as Mr. Smallweed points out. What was more sruprising than the Gingrich win was that RP could not best Santorum even with DeMint and State Sen. Tom Davis (the two Tea Party stars down here), the Paul bots must be beside themselves...
"Of course, Gingrich’s dudgeon leaves a few questions open: If a former spouse of a presidential candidate makes a head-turning claim, should the media not report it? Should they not ask the candidate about it?"
I don't think you get it, Jim. Heartland America is seething at the MSMedia's being AWOL in the 2008 campaign regarding the background of Obama and scrutiny of his associations with people and organizations/movements. Their complete abdication of their responsibility to protect the American people - by zealously seeking all unvarnished facts and reporting them to the American people to decide what those facts mean - .has gutted their credibility and respectability with millions of Americans. And so, when these Media icons have the gall to ask penetrating uncomfortable questions (and make them center stage questions ... I mean, prime focus on an angry ex-wife, but no questions about Iran? Come on!) of Republican candidates, after the continual hovering protection of Obama, our blood churns white-hot ... and Gingrich is the only candidate who gives visible voice! to that cry for representation.
Have the media demanded - even ONCE, much less relentlessly - that, in the interest of 'transparency and full disclosure', Obama turn over his medical records, his college transcripts, his thesis, a list of his clients while at the law firm he worked for after college, how he happened to be able to travel to Pakistan in the early 80's during a period when Americans were legally forbidden to travel there on America passports?
The media, in the minds of millions, has sold their souls, their integrity, their credibility, and their respectability. And now the media wants to play its own 'victim' card ("Waaa - Gingrich is bashing us")? Grotesque.
The game is 'fixed', the 'fix' is noticed by millions of Americans, they no longer believe or give any weight to anything the MSMedia says , and Gingrich is their voice shouting "Enough! We're mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore!"
An EXCELLENT post, L K S! The only suggestion I have is a modest on: from now one, all conservatives should refrain from using the term "mainstream media" or any derivatives of it. The proper term to use is leftist media or left-wing media.
I sure hope you are right. However, I get the feeling that it's only the Republicans (and only the Republicans that are paying attention) who are angry with media. It seems that most people are apathetic about the media and don't really pay them any attention. They're more interested in who is winning American Idol or Survivor than what is going on in the news.
What is amazing is that many on our side are now suddenly surprised and shocked by the 3 tons elephant in the room that would make it impossible for Romney to win the general elections and that is Bain Capital. Seriously folks, you really never thought that this is not just a bad issue for Romney but the most fatal of all issues to his elections chances? Do you really believe that the majority of voters in this environment are going to elect an investment banker who founded a company, Bain Capital, which main business is to buy and sell companies and in the process many lose their jobs? In what delusional world do you live in? The 15% tax rate is just the icing on the cake for Obama and the cake is Bain Capital and Romney wealth will be more icing this cake, Romney homes, Romney flip flops, etc.... There is no way under the sun that Romney is going to defeat Obama if he is the nominee. Now I think that a majority of Republican voters have realized Romney utter weakness and that his electability is a big BS myth and they are saying no to him...
Here's what we learned: A big chunk of purported born-again evangelicals are big-time hypocrites.
Do they really think Newt has repented? Do they even care? Does a guy who's repented say "that story is false" when his ex-wife says he asked for an open marriage? Do they believe Newt's telling the truth? Do they even care? Even if Marianne Gingrich were a liar, how does a repentant man call her out on it after what he did to her?
His ex-wife did not say that he asked for an open marriage; his ex-wife said "hoe more or less asked for an open marriage."
You obviously are not a Christian because if you where you would know that when someone acknowledges the errors of their ways and repents before God we are to take them at their word – thou shall not judge – because his offense is against God; not man.
Come on Mike; I thought you were above half truths and falsehoods.
See above. We take them at their word vis-a-vis our relation to them as human beings. We don't vote for them. My guess is that you see some validity in denying to ex-offenders -- even those who tell you they've fully repented -- certain political rights. Eh?
Mike, what we learn from your comment is that you do not understand Christianity. As a primer, so that you may comment knowledgeably in the future, as well as for the sake of your own soul, I urge you to read the gospels of John and Matthew, and Paul's letter to the Romans.
Mr. Smallweed, what about loving the sinner and hating the sin? Specifically:
1. Even if you think evangelicals by and large truly believe that Marianne Gingrich's story "is false" (in Newt's exact words), surely they must be surprised that someone such as Newt, who purports to be truly sorry for what he has done to Marianne, wouldn't turn the other cheek when Marianne slapped him last week by telling a false tale. Why didn't Newt simply refuse to comment on the substance of her allegations and simply and solemnly repeating his profound regret for his past behavior? The answer is: he actually did -- through campaign sources and through his daughters, before the debate. External Link But at the debate, in front of the camera and with the opportunity to play the audience for political gain in the style of Elmer Gantry, he took a quite different approach -- he was indignant, to say the least. If you believe as I do that at no time is a repentant sinner justified in snapping back at his accusers, "Stop beating me up about my past!" then you'd expect evangelicals to consider this behavior evidence that he's not yet truly repentant and pray for Newt's soul, but not give him their votes.
2. On the other hand, if you think (as I do) that most evangelicals probably realize that Marianne Gingrich is telling the truth and that Newt is lying about it, you'd expect even more that they'd pray for Newt's lying soul but deny him their votes.
Is that not your sense of what we are taught in God's Word?
You do know that not all of South Carolina is made up of evangelicals, right? I'm sure a lot of South Carolinians are divorced -- just as there are many divorced couples throughout the country. That's just a little aside. Many Republicans (and I'm sure that includes Republicans in SC) fear for the future of their children. Most parents will do whatever it takes to make sure their children aren't worse off than themselves. That means electing someone who will fight for the country. Priorities. We've got a country to save.
The difference between someone who is a hypocrite and a sinner is that the sinner apologizes AND admits that he was wrong. If he does so, then we are called to forgive "till seventy times seven times."
As far as whether or not Newt is lying - if the Christian has no proof either way, a Christian errs on the side of Charity - for both individuals. It is clear that *something* was said or implied that was interpreted by one party one way, and another party another way. If you want to know the truth, you'll have to lock them both up in a room and wait until they both agree on what was said and what it meant. Until then, presume nothing.
Lastly, at this point with the economy in the dumps, I really have to wonder if folks even care about sideline junk like this anyway.
Follow
