The primary race that has just started and should still be wide open is already supposedly almost over — but still isn’t quite.
The conventional wisdom is that Mitt Romney — bleeding a bit by the successful, counter-conservative anti-Bain commercials, and raising eyebrows by his play-it-safe, wooden showing in the recent debate — still has so much more organization and money that he cannot be caught. By now he has convinced fence-sitting voters that he would not embarrass them in September with either a blonde out of his past or a wacky proposal that will cause outrage but lead to little real new policy: He is not great, but good enough to beat Obama. He may be caricatured as a blue-blood Bush I, but also is trusted as a fixer who knew what he was doing, and so will profit the U.S. the way he once profited for himself.
And the conventional wisdom continues that Republicans (and even Romney supporters) nonetheless sigh that sometimes Gingrich (and Gingrich alone in the present field) can rise to Reagan’s rhetoric in the debates and might, if nominated, repeat those occasional dazzling performances with an outclassed Barack Obama — but is otherwise too erratic and with too much baggage to win the nomination. (Everyone seems to have a Democratic or Independent cousin who at least claims that this election he/she just might vote against Obama, but only for a Romney.)
And the thinking goes on that, although the current negative advertising seems to be surpassing the Obama-Clinton invective of 2008, the party will unite around the nominee as the Democrats did in 2008 and as the Republicans did in 2000, and that perhaps a successful Romney will not be a Dewey/Dole/McCain on the stump, or an elder Bush in office (or if he proves to be, it would still be better than the a second Obama term).
All the above seems the general narrative, but is still not quite certain. For all the hype, we are still at the very beginning, not the middle of the primaries. Gingrich still has a long-shot chance to outshine Romney again in the debate to assure the voters that the disparity is real and permanent, to have Santorum and Perry exit to unify the conservative opposition, to assume his critics will forgive his insane anti-Bain commercials on grounds that they worked, to avoid another outburst or embarrassing disclosure, and to point to polls that suddenly he does about as well as Romney against Obama. Unlikely — but not impossible.
And behind all this looms the fact that an out-of-sight and quiet Obama has risen back in the polls, the level of suicidal invective is fodder for the Democrats, and no Republican candidate has spelled out a vision of precise policies to save America from insolvency at home and irrelevancy abroad. So there is a holding pattern of sorts, as Republican voters wonder whether Romney will have a moment of animation in a Gingrich-like debate outing, hope that all the attacks will lead someday lead to shaking hands and that-was-then-this-is-now unity, and pray that a candidate can energize and enthuse rather than be the least unattractive of the alternatives.
Any reason the word "Paul" doesn't appear in this post?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's probably because Paul is most difficult to say anything meaningful about. He not going to drop, so that's not an issue. He's never had a chance of winning SC. Lastly, do we really know exactly who he's taking votes from. I'm not sure if there's agreement on that question, either. He's a force to be reckoned with, yet he defies analysis.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am rather surprised to find myself agreeing with Sarah Palin, but I think she hit it on the head - we need to keep this race going. It is a terrible shame to have the race all but over when only two states have voted. If I were a resident of South Carolina, I would hold my nose and vote for Gingrich, if only to keep the campaign going.
I completely disagree that long, bitter primary battles weaken the candidate for the general election. The long and bitter primary battle between Obama and Clinton did nothing to hurt Obama's chances in the final election. It's a myth whose only validity seems to come from how often it has been repeated.
P.S. "Blue-blood Bush I" is redundant.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSarah had such great promise, but is so disappointing. Her husband endorsed Newt Gingrich, after the former Speaker (who was forced to resign in disgrace) turned to ugly left wing attacks on the successful Private Enterprise of Mr. Romney.
For years now, after Sarah accepted the dreadful Maverick Platform, she has displayed a self interest, as well as a desire to follow and exploit fashionable winds.
This is a prime example of Sarah not doing her homework:
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Republicans Are Furious About Obama's Christmas Card... Wait Till They See Reagan's"
While I agree that it would be a shame if the nomination were wrapped up after South Carolina, if only because so many Republicans would have no say in the nominee, I think that it is wrong to vote for a candidate just to prolong the nomination process. I think a battle between two strong contenders would help to fire up the GOP and flesh out issues. However, I cannot and do not want to imagine Newt Gingrich as president, and I don't think anyone should vote for him just to extend a nomination process.
Although it seems Rick Perry is toast, I wouldn't mind a protracted battle between Mitt and either Rick Perry or Rick Santorum.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt really makes no sense to keep the 2012 GOP primary season going just for the sake of keeping it going. The current candidates are not good enough for this. Its not as if there are 3-4 quality candidates that command large support bases. There are no true conflicting visions (other than Paul's), there is no geographic rivalry being played out. You have career D.C. insiders claiming that they are true "outsiders." Are we really supposed to believe Newt Gingrich when he makes this claim? Ridiculous. Romney has more differences with conservatives and Republicans than he does with his likely general election opponent.
Its pointless to keep the race going. Its like watching a bunch of 6-6 college football teams trying to earn votes for the national championship (pre-bcs). It may be good for TV ratings, news coverage, and the pundits but that's about it.
Candidates are only remaining in the race because the competition is not very good.
Whats the point of continuing that?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Irrelevancy abroad." Bring it on!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, we know Newt Gingrich will lose dramatically in any National Election he is entered into. Newt could not even make the VA Ballot, his incompetence and ugly baggage is vast.
Nor was his Debate performance as grand as the sale, but the push by some to overcome Romney in the last ditch effort in SC is intense. Newt's early debate exercise created silence, trying to distract from the ugly left wing politics he offered in desperation trying to attack the successful Private Enterprise of Mr. Romney. Gingrich even used the old Democratic Partisan game of merely "answering questions". Folks amongst us want to hype the exchange with the misguided Juan Williams, but in reality it doesn't look as attractive as some perceive. Newt's hubris is not inspiring.
It was amazing to see some so-called Conservative Opinion Marketers join this bandwagon which was telling us we should be afraid of leftist populism in a General Elections. Some of these same forces were telling us not so long ago, we needed to have a robust defense of Conservative principles. They revealed how hypocritical they have become, completely dishonest, lost in saying anything to encourage their prejudiced vision - all desperate to stop the proven Private Sector success. It isn't Conservatism.
But we all see the hype, the emotive fan fare, the endless reactionary offering, as if only a "real" conservative must offer strident bombast. So many have lost their credibility over this Primary, and it looks like the rather ugly games are only going to grow.
So now we are back to running Newt as the alternative? The same Beltway Insider who grafted 1.8 Million via Fannie and Freddie, has no proven Executive experience, is an Icon of failed Washington Politicians, offers no serious private sector insight, sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi selling global warming nonsense at the request of Al Gore?
We have watched the Delaware disaster before, and no doubt some are just eager to self destruct again.
But we best get it together before the General Election.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOld Fan!
I'm a Big Fan of your Consistent and Focused Support of Romney in the Corner Comment Threads. If Romney is able to Secure the GOP Nomination and the Presidency it will be because of Supporters Like You Who have made the Case for Him through Thick and Thin in 2011 and Going Forward in 2012.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNobody's buying your "offering" (haha). Do you really think you are going to exhaust people into supporting Romney?
We understand that Newt is flawed and we admit it. You won't admit that Romney is flawed. Your argument is that Mitt Romney was successful in the Private Sector (which you inexplicably capitalize in every post). We get it. He was also a governor, and a pretty liberal one at that.
Newt Gingrich says some nutty things sometimes. Yes. Mitt Romney doesn't ruffle any feathers. Yes. But given the chance to make law, the Speaker had a rock-ribbed conservative agenda. The same can not be said for Governor Romney, who was "an independent during Reagan-Bush"(!).
P.S. Your "offering" (haha!) was about as long as Romney's rambling answer about releasing his tax statements.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseVast "ugly baggage"? What's Romneycare? Both vast and ugly. If all the states adopted it, it would be 10th Amendment Obamacare. And no Romney backtracking on it (unlike the Heritage Foundation and Gingrich). Robert Moffit of the Heritage Foundation:
"Yes, in the early 1990s, we, along with other prominent conservative economists, supported the idea of such a mandate. It seemed the only way to solve the 'free-rider' problem, in which individuals can, under federal law, walk into any hospital emergency room nationwide and rack up big bills at taxpayer expense.
"Our research in the ensuing two decades has led us to realize our initial idea was operationally ineffective and legally defective. Well before Obama was elected, we dropped it. In the spring 2008 edition of the Harvard Health Policy Review, I advanced far better alternatives to the individual mandate to expand coverage, relying on positive tax incentives and other mechanisms to facilitate enrollment in private health insurance. This is what researchers and fact-based policymakers do when they discover new facts or conduct deeper analysis."
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama is indeed faring better. E.g. he is currently at 46%-46% in today's Gallup poll. At this point, only Reagan (~52%), GW Bush (~59%) and Carter!! (~58%) were doing much better. Clinton's Gallup approval rating in early Jan.1996 was 42% while Bush#41 and Ford also had a 46% approval. Finally, Nixon's early Jan.1972 approval was 49%.
Considering the state of the economy and the polarization of the electorate, O seems to be in decent shape... In fact, the single most important reason is probably increased economic confidence ( External Link
). I don't think it is an accident that the economic confidence index, right track/wrong track index and Obama's job approval all started to improve at the same time, in September 2011. A minor contributing factor might be the payroll tax fiasco in December 2011 ... it's interesting that Congress remains as unpopular now as back in August ( External Link 
).
MARCU$
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe group think of those who are part of, or support (like NROs editors), the Republican establishment may well have done for Romney what they did for GW Bush in 2000. Painted him as inevitable, reacted viscerally to any attack on their preferred candidate, and ridiculed any perceived threat to their preferred candidate as unelectable.
And for their efforts in 2000 we got a medicare drug entitlement, TARP, the largest deficits ever (until Obama), and the adoption of progressive foreign policy in his second term. All of which led directly to Obama and Democrat control of both houses of congress.
Did you see that enthusiasm at the South Carolina debate the other night? That was the drive that led to massive conservative gains in the 2010 election. Don't hold your breath for anything similar in an Obama-Romney race.
All of the oh so clever pundits that have done everything they could to keep Romney from any serious challenge may have given us a candidate that fits squarely into every stereotype the left has used for decades, while depriving conservatives of a candidate they can actually vote for, rather than settle for. All while studiously refusing to even discuss Romney's own electability issues.
They may have won the short term debate, and thereby kept control of the party and their status in the punditocracy, but the unintended consequences of this elitism masked as pragmatism are likely to be huge. The truth is, Romney might well be the least electable of all the candidates, Ron Paul excepted.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAbsolutely. Romney will lose and lose big, dragging the party down with him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo reiterate. Gingrich's flip flop marathon since 2009 on his key Big Gov't dogmas; "We Can Solve It" Cap & Trade, the Individual Mandate at the federal level from 1992 through May 15, 2011, his Washington insider ties to Freddie Mac selling it's GSE model for 1.8 million up until Sept. 2008, his trashing the GOP's Ryan Plan "right wing social engineering"--and his endorsement for the Iraq cut & run in 2011, disqualifies him from credibily de-bating Obama.
Gingrich, quote:
"I like the GSE model...making home ownership more assesible and affordable is a policy I believe conservatives should embrace...and want to extend as widely as possible." (2007)
"As I said to them at the time, this is a bubble. This is insane. This is impossible."
"Only giving history lectures..and offering advise on precisely what they didn't do."
"If you want to put people in jail, you ought to start with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. And let's look at the politicians who created the environment, the politicians who profited from that environment, and the politicians who put the country in trouble."
(Oct. 2011)
Newt should be pressured to release the details of his contract with Freddie Mac now.
Freddie Mac officials insist that they "welcome" making public their contractual agreement with Gingrich. The hitch is, Newt's think tank the "Center for Health Transformation" (promoter of his Individual Mandate at the fed level) is refusing to disclose to the American people his secret deal with Freddie Mac.
? ?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDitto, "Wall Street Occupier" Newt's attack on free enterprise--i.e., "Small group of rich people manipulating the lives of 1000s of people, and taking their money."--won't exactly lend him private sector credibility in the national de-bate with Obama, either.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSouth Carolina voters: please vote for Romney. Neither Santorum nor Gingrich has the money, organization, or plan for a long haul and difficult struggle with Obama. Unseating ANY incumbent president is a difficult and expensive business. Come Labor Day, Newt would have the tabloids, Obama the Rose Garden.
It doesn't matter if Gingrich would crush Obama in a debate. The MSM will ensure that Gingrich is destroyed well BEFORE the debates.
Gingrich spells electoral disaster in November.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm afraid, after many months (maybe even years), I've finally come to terms with Romney as the Republican candidate for president in 2012. Much as I love Newt, and much as I'd love to see his rhetorical pyrotechnics directed against Obama in debates or in the campaign more generally, the fact is, his erratic behavior and over-the-top bombast, leavened with a streak of nasty a mile wide, not to mention his "difficult" personal life, make him unelectable in a general election. A person who votes for Newt assumes Obama will win and simply wants to score some debate points on the way down to defeat. Romney's flaws are obvious and well-known (serial flip-flopping, Mass. healthcare, occasional verbal awkwardness, etc.), but if the economy remains soft going into the election, moderates and independents could well choose the candidate with real and successful business experience. Better hope so, anyway.
This thread started with a Paul reference, and I would say, look for Paul to do better as the other candidates start to drop out. Paul has his partisans to be sure, but I actually think (and know people like this) many have and will vote for him as a kind of none-of-the-above protest vote. Partisans, of course, will confuse this for support for his policies ideas, but it's not; it's just "I don't like Romney or anyone else." That's a sentiment I can appreciate but we have the field that we have, and in that field, Romney is the only electable choice. If he is elected, I'm sure he'll do things that will drive me crazy, but look at the alternative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGingrich would get crushed in a general election, he spells electoral disaster from the top of the ticket to the bottom.
A first Romney term is much better than a 2nd Obama term. Can anyone imagine what havoc Obama could wreak without ever having to face the voters again?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt continues to tout his debate prowess against Obama. I'm not so sure that his arrogantly disdainful, racially tinged delivery would hold up well against the first black president of the United States as well with the general population as it does in South Carolina.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse