New Hampshire and after
[Posted by Karl]
The last polls had Mitt Romney poised to win the New Hampshire primary easily, sitting at 33-35% of the vote. The only danger for Romney is expectations; if he came in below 30%, after polling above 40% less than a week ago, the chatter will be about losing momentum.
Nevertheless, a win is a win. Gallup suggests that since 1976, the leader in their national polling after New Hampshire has ultimately won the nomination. The data almost equally suggests that the national frontrunner before Iowa is a good bet to win the nomination, with the exception of 2008. The unusual fluidity of 2008 is about the best hope for those in the NotRomney camp, in the sense that we could be in a period where grassroots satisfaction with the “next-in-line” nature of the GOP nomination is making it more difficult for an early frontrunner to win. But that’s a relatively slender reed: the current Gallup national trends look roughly similar to those of 2008, with Romney taking the McCain spot.
Indeed, the current poll average in South Carolina also looks roughly similar, although the surging Rick Santorum and falling New Gingrich both look as strong as Huckabee looked against McCain. Romney will try to essentially sew up the nomination there, which underscores the importance of for Romney of not underperforming in New Hampshire. Right now, 60% of registered Republicans and leaners think Romney will be the nominee. But if Romney looks weak on Wednesday, Santorum may continue to rise at Newt’s expense in the 10 days to South Carolina. If Santorum were to win the Palmetto State — or even manage the sort of photo finish we saw in Iowa — we might be in for an unpleasant discussion of whether Romney’s Mormonism is dragging him down against the more openly religious Santorum in more conservative states. At least, you can bet that would be the establishment angle on it.
–Karl
Ding!
Karl (5a613f) — 1/10/2012 @ 7:01 am“One tidbit uncovered in a round of investigative drinking in New Hampshire: Some politicos worry that Rand Paul’s many out-of-state volunteers may decide to vote in the primary, using the state’s relatively loose same-day-registration procedures. … These would not be local crossover voters who are registered as independents and decide to make some mischief. It would be mischief-making on a whole other level. … John Fund, call your office.”
http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/10/election-day-mischief-making/
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/10/2012 @ 7:06 amNot his “Mormonism”, Karl, his “Capitalism”.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/10/2012 @ 7:07 am“Nevertheless, a win is a win.”
And a tie is a win, a narrow loss is a win, …
Buyer’s remorse begins day after wrap.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/10/2012 @ 7:13 amand they’ll be doing it for the
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/10/2012 @ 7:37 amchildrenworkers.http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/46cae3e2-5837-40ac-9a9a-929e9f89027f
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/10/2012 @ 7:42 amHow did Hewitt’s support of Deval Patrick worl out again
narciso (87e966) — 1/10/2012 @ 7:49 amI was just thinking I wonder what Hugh Hewitt thinks about all this
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/10/2012 @ 7:49 amWho gives a shat what Hugh Hewitt thinks.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/10/2012 @ 8:10 amI can’t vouch for conspiracy to paint general Romney opposition as “evangelical” but I can tell you it is irritating in the extreme.
Evangelicals are not the only one’s on a desperate hunt with little time for a non-romney
SarahW (b0e533) — 1/10/2012 @ 8:55 am8 and 9 mean the same thing. I like both ways of saying it.
SarahW (b0e533) — 1/10/2012 @ 8:57 amYour right.
Never thought I’d say that.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/10/2012 @ 9:03 am“I can’t vouch for conspiracy to paint general Romney opposition as “evangelical” but I can tell you it is irritating in the extreme.”
SarahW – I have not seen this conspiracy promoted. Do you have any examples?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/10/2012 @ 9:07 amGo to Google news and type in terms: Evangelicals Romney
sarahW (b0e533) — 1/10/2012 @ 9:12 amI don’t assert its a conspiracy by the way but the headlines create a false impression that the problem isn’t more general.
sarahW (b0e533) — 1/10/2012 @ 9:13 amJonah from his alternate venue:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg-romney-20120110,0,5026869.column
There will be no consensus, and no unity.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/10/2012 @ 9:20 amThey attack who they consider truly effective;
http://bigjournalism.com/driehl/2012/01/10/koch-derangement-syndrome-the-new-york-timess-stalinesque-attacks-on-the-koch-brothers/
narciso (87e966) — 1/10/2012 @ 9:24 amRiehl:
“There are many activities of a capitalst nature, not all of them are equal once one considers the underlying values driving the various individuals engaged in them. I can remain a solid capitalist and still not care for Mitt Romney as a potential nominee because of the decisions he made in his personal wealth creation. And anyone who would say, oh no, you can’t do that, but would reject him on values grounds if he sold porn, or hookers where it’s legal, or provided abortions is simply fooling his, or her self.”
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/10/2012 @ 9:26 amMr. Rasmussen, Sir, why again are you weighting Republicans as 35% of the electorate?
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/percentage-of-americans-identifying-as-political-independents-reaches-all-time-high-in-gallup-poll/
Sure hope Romany can do as well with Dimmis and Indies as Nor Laup, America Elect, and Jughead.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/10/2012 @ 9:36 amThere will be no consensus, and no unity.
Comment by gary gulrud — 1/10/2012 @ 9:20 am
— Not if they go all pessimisty like you they won’t.
Icy (ffd136) — 1/10/2012 @ 9:40 am“I don’t assert its a conspiracy by the way but the headlines create a false impression that the problem isn’t more general.”
sarahW – The idea that evangelicals might have a tough time voting for Romney is nothing new. It was there in 2008, but I understand the frustration that there are more people who have issues with voting for him. Fortunately there are plenty of anti-Romney articles being written.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/10/2012 @ 9:51 amFor you delectation.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/10/2012 @ 9:51 amYes, but the presumption is that is because he is Mormon, rather than his policy views,
narciso (87e966) — 1/10/2012 @ 9:53 amYes, but the presumption is that is because he is Mormon, rather than his policy views,
narciso – When articles written from the perpective of evangelicals include quotes from pastors saying his flock should not vote for a non-christian that is a fair assessment.
There are plenty of articles not written from that perspective. Smorgasbord, baby.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/10/2012 @ 9:59 am20. “Pessimisty”
You know if you were inspired with a reasoning to offer in rebuttal, everyone would conceivably be edified.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/10/2012 @ 10:02 amJG-
“Every four years pundits and activists talk about how cool it would be to have a brokered convention (if no candidate has 50% of the delegates by convention time). This is the first time I’ve heard people saying it may be necessary.”
A brokered convention is going from a remote possibility to a welcomed outcome.
Bugg (34ad0e) — 1/10/2012 @ 10:02 am____________________________________________
Romney doesn’t mind the idea of government forcing people to buy health insurance, Gingrich is yapping about like an OWSer regarding corporate greed, Perry slams others for sounding “heartless” about immigration, Santorum can be quite permissive about big government as usual, generally right-leaning folks like Patterico favor the concept of same-sex marriage, all the while as President “Goddamn America” is sitting in the Oval Office.
No shortage of squish out there, and if it generally errs on one side or the other, it will more likely err on the side of the left. Keep in mind that the biggest blunders of Republicans administrations since at least Herbert Hoover have been when they’ve been guilty of this. So Hoover was a big-tax-and-spend prelude to Roosevelt, Nixon was Nixon, Reagan secretly negotiated with hostage-taking Iran, Bush Sr said “read my lips,” and Bush Jr was a pushover when it came to bloated budgets and also deemed that conservatism needed to be “compassionate.”
So is it any wonder that November 2008 could occur so easily in the first place?
Mark (411533) — 1/10/2012 @ 10:02 amIsn’t it sad that with all the very legitimate criticisms of Romney, such as his failure as a governor, it’s the more emotional cheap shots that appear to be taking its toll on him?
We’re witnessing an evolution that isn’t going to go away any time soon.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/10/2012 @ 10:30 amhttp://biggovernment.com/jpollak/2011/10/25/barack-obama-led-occupychicago-circa-1988/
narciso (87e966) — 1/10/2012 @ 10:37 amPlus, HotAir has the details about Gingrich’s own involvement with a leveraged buyout corporation much like Bain.
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/01/09/newt-gingrichs-private-equity-past/
Sigh. The high road is always, always better. The negativity is the problem, all around.
And Axelrod is laughing.
Simon Jester (9709e0) — 1/10/2012 @ 11:00 amAxelrod is laughing because he likes to take it up the anus with Charles Johnson.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/10/2012 @ 11:32 am30,31. Axelrod is soiling himself because the Left and Right have telegraphed, marked with a Sharpie, nailed to the forehead notice to the squishy, flaccid Center that both were gunning for Princess 18 months out.
Leave it to the Party of Schtooopid to say “Oh, you don’t really mean it” and “Oh, if we could only get along” [sanctimonius head tilt].
Useless bags of mostly water.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/10/2012 @ 12:06 pmThere’s a tradition in New Hampshire that everybody in a certain small town gets together and they vote just after midnight Election day.
Since everybody has voted they close the polls asnd report the results. Actually there’s now two places but the first place is Dixville Notch.
The results last night were:
Republican Primary
Romney…….2 votes
Huntsman…2 votes
Gingrich……1 vote
Paul………….1 vote
Total votes cast: 6
Democratic Primary
Obama……..3 votes
Total votes cast: 3
Total votes cast in Dixville Notch altogether: 9
The number of votes cast in Dixville Notch has been declining over the years.
Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 1/10/2012 @ 12:15 pmComment by narciso — 1/10/2012 @ 9:53 am
Yes, but the presumption is that is because he is Mormon, rather than his policy views,
It’s his policy views, but it’s also because in some ways he comes across as possibly being, as Rush Limbaugh put it today when he was pressed by a pro-Newt caller: “Richard Nixon 2” (Although Obama is trying to make him Dewey)
Limbaugh does not like the way Gingrich is going about attacking Romney.
He said only 2 of the 100 companies Bain was involved with are the subject of the ads. Everybody has been using the same two companies over the years.
Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 1/10/2012 @ 12:23 pmThis is all fine and good, to hold a circular firing squad. But Axlerod is still going to have to explain why Obama has gone without a budget for more than 2 years, why Obama has borrowed over $5 trillion to no good effect, and how he is about to borrow another $1.2 trillion next week for more…what exactly?Our debt is about to eclipse annual GDP. And when (no longer if) Greece defaults the dominoes of fiscal profligacy are going to be so big someone in power is going to catch a serious bag of flaming nuclear poop on their political porch. And it’s going to be the guy in office for all this indifference to common sense. It sure isn’t a record to run on, and it defintely is not leadership.
Bugg (34ad0e) — 1/10/2012 @ 12:25 pm“…Some politicos worry that Rand Paul’s many out-of-state volunteers may decide to vote in the primary, using the state’s relatively loose same-day-registration procedures…”
Rand Paul’s???
AD-RtR/OS! (59e68b) — 1/10/2012 @ 12:28 pmKaus corrected his post within the last hour to read “Ron Paul” – appearantly he reads the comments posted in response to his writings.
AD-RtR/OS! (59e68b) — 1/10/2012 @ 12:36 pm35. “circular firing squad”
Yes the conservatives, especially Michele, thought they could attack those on their ideological side and make headway.
But there are really only two sides at play. The side invested in DC with the money, and the guys without.
Its more one side has ammo and the chumps don’t.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/10/2012 @ 12:44 pmSigh. The high road is always, always better.
Gee, and Newt didn’t try the high road, while Mitt did? What color is the sky over there?
Kevin M (563f77) — 1/10/2012 @ 12:51 pmI think the two suns make it hard to tell.
narciso (87e966) — 1/10/2012 @ 12:56 pmHow come no one’s breathlessly leaking their exit polling?
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/10/2012 @ 1:05 pmI wish the obamas would be hurtled towards the sun.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/10/2012 @ 2:01 pmWhy does the left support raising taxes on the rich but yet their idiot voters shriek when they have taxes raised on their favorite things?
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/10/2012 @ 3:41 pmAnd yes not raising taxes on the rich is like raising taxes on the middle class?
Because not raising taxes on one class is the same as raising taxes on another class.
When the economy collapses I don’t wanna hear the left blame it on lower taxes for the wealthy.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/10/2012 @ 3:43 pmSo, if it must be Romney, what happens to the Republican Party if the slam dunk electable Establishment candidate loses again? My thinking is that the Tea Party starts organizing to replace it/consume it. Not that it will matter much after Obama kills the country.
Kevin M (563f77) — 1/10/2012 @ 6:20 pmDry those tears, Kev. Tomorrow is another day.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/10/2012 @ 6:23 pmAfter this, I’d bet that after South Carolina there are probably 3 and no more than 4 candidates: Romney, Paul*, and probably one of Santorum and Gingrich. Huntsman doesn’t have a next move, and Perry won’t be in the SC debates, making him a bit of a non-candidate.
(* of course calling Paul a Republican candidate is a bit of a stretch, given the exit polls. His strongest support comes from non-Republican/first-time Republican voters).
Kevin M (563f77) — 1/10/2012 @ 6:28 pmMark called our host “a squish”? Oy!
Icy (d8098c) — 1/10/2012 @ 9:37 pmMark has the nerve.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/10/2012 @ 10:12 pmRush Limbaugh broadcast a quote and there’s also something on Big Government :
http://biggovernment.com/publius/2012/01/11/breaking-palin-urges-romney-to-release-tax-returns-provide-proof-of-100000-jobs-created-at-bain-capital/
It looks like Sarah Palin wants Rick Perry.
Although, more exactly, what she really wants is for conservatives to coalesce around a “free market, pro-military” candidate.
That probably means Not Romney (if Romney was a possibility there wouldn’t be an issue) and Not Paul.
Is she thinking about Newt Gingrich? She was apparently more or less asked that. Todd Palin has endorsed Gingrich.
“First dude went rogue,” is her explanation.
So she’s not really looking for Newt Gingrich.
Now there’s a group meeting this Saturday and Sunday. So maybe she wants them to endorse Rick Perry. But Perry is really low in the polls. It’s not likely if they get together, it’ll be for Perry.
Its going to have to be Santorum.
Sammy Finkelman (9a6ee5) — 1/12/2012 @ 11:09 amOr nobody. At least in the upcoming South Caolina primary
Tey could also wait till after South Carolina. There’d be more unity and goodwill then,
And then for the possibility that Rick Perry drops out, and endorse Santorum before Florida.
They’ll also maybe be watching to see who does better: Gingrich or Santorum. They were virtually tied in New Hampshire, with an edge to Gingrich.
Just remember this:
Romney + Paul + 5 <45 = Not Romney. They really have to make clear that Ron Paul is not an alternative to Romney.
Sammy Finkelman (9a6ee5) — 1/12/2012 @ 11:15 am