Rick Perry prevents catastrophe as South Carolina, Florida loom

Started by inimalist3 pages

Rick Perry prevents catastrophe as South Carolina, Florida loom

So, like all of you, I was glued to what turned out to be a nail biter of a caucus in Iowa last night. Mitt Romney barely defeated Rick Santorum to take the first victory in the actual contest to represent the Republican party in the 2012 election. Like, seriously, they were tied at ~24.5% with 99.5% of the polls reporting. I literally have never seen an election for anything as close as that was (I suppose the 2000 presidential election, but I was too young to follow that in an minute-by-minute way).

And ok, the obvious caveats before I get into this. Yes, winning Iowa isn't really that impressive, it doesn't mean someone will win the nomination, and often goes to very right of center (American center) politicians. Sure, only really Texas and California matter.

I'm going to throw this out there: Going by what they have said their policy will be, Rick Santorum is by far the most problematic candidate in the race. His stance on reproductive health is archaic to say the least, of all the candidates he seems the most eager to legislate his own views on religion and morality and the obvious homophobic stuff. Economically, sure, he might not be much worse or better than the other candidates who compete with each other to give the most lucrative taxation systems to the already rich, but in terms of moral conservatism, Santorum is from a bygone age. Further, his explicit stance on Iran is: lets bomb them, though to be fair, he isn't as insane as some other candidates, as he wants to work with the Pakistani government in order to continue killing Pakistanis, not explicitly start a war with Pakistan.

However, Santorum lost last night's election by the smallest of margins. Looking at population density maps of Iowa compared to the riding map, it becomes clear that Santorum's largest support base comes from rural areas with small pop. densities. The obvious assumption is that these are the rural Christian conservatives, which isn't too large a stretch, as that is the base Santorum is expected to do well with and that population is vehemently against Romney. Further, two such rural ridings went to Rick Perry, a fellow Christian conservative with disastrous views on moral and foreign policy. If you look even at the ridings Santorum won, often it is Perry who finished in second, with Romney often not even placing in the top 3.

So, Perry received only 10% of the vote overall, and wasn't expected to do well anyways. If we imagine a scenario where this 10% were to vote for any of the candidates except for Perry (ie: Perry drops out), the clear advantage in that case would be for Santorum, or Bachman though I don't think she would have been boosted by much. Santorum would have needed only the slightest boost, and if Perry's 2 ridings alone had gone to Santorum, he would be going to New Hampshire as the undisputed victor of the Iowa poll.

News today suggests that Bachman is out of the race, something that stands to improve Santorum's chances much more than Romney's, yet Perry is still in until South Carolina (according to his Twitter). Given Romney is the favorite for New Hampshire, this probably doesn't mean anything for the next caucus, as the greatest challenge there will be Paul and the potential libertarian vote. However, the following caucuses are South Carolina and Florida, states where Romney has always struggled and where the Christian conservatives vote in force.

Even with a resounding victory in New Hampshire, Romney is going to face a massive hurdle in these states, especially considering these are votes he is not expected to win. With Perry still in the race some votes may be siphoned to him from Santorum, which might assist Romney, but what if Perry drops? In that scenario, Santorum wins huge majorities in South Carolina and Florida, moving into a series of caucuses including Nevada, Colorado, Arizona and Georgia. The momentum his campaign could pick up from such a showing in Iowa and two quick wins in SC and Fla might be enough to rocket him through many of the early caucuses, potentially derailing Mitt in the process.

Ok, so ya, this has been the game this whole time, with one candidate or another rising to challenge Romney and then eventually imploding, however, its now at the point where other options are dwindling fast. If we assume there is a mass part of the Republican party base that just simply wont vote for Romney and isn't interested in Paul, and candidates like Perry and Bachman are dropping out, this constituency is left with essentially one option. So, if Perry sticks around until SC and Fla, that would be wonderful, as the mega-conservative evangelical vote will be split, and if nothing else, it will reduce the momentum the Santorum campaign would receive in those votes. However, if Perry drops, Santorum becomes the "not-Romney" candidate by default that appeals to the Christian voters, and Santorum looks poised to make huge wins that may elevate him to representing the Republicans in 2012.

So, while I obviously think all of this is disastrous because of how negatively a Santorum presidency would impact Americans and the world in general, if you disagree, think of it this way: Santorum wont beat Obama.

hmmm, I may have been too disparaging of Gingrich, I figured he was done, again, but it appears he will be the main competitor with Romeny in SC and Fla

What I'm seeing: Bachman is out of the race (officially) and Huntsman has zero chance of winning so they can be ignored. Paul appears to have tailored his message to work in Iowa, given his low numbers everywhere else, so he isn't likely to be a major confound in the other races. Perry is too far behind to be anything but a confound for other people running.

Do you think Gingrinch is competing more with Romney voters or Santorum voters?

The historical bit is interesting. Romney already took Iowa and currently looks like a shoe in for the New Hampshire win.

Not sure how accurate those polls show. I'm showing Paul is it second in NH. with 18% and not Santorum who should be where Paul is.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-1581.html

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Not sure how accurate those polls show. I'm showing Paul is it second in NH. with 18% and not Santorum who should be where Paul is.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-1581.html

That poll agrees with the ones they're sampling from so it looks like the person who made that chart for RCP got Paul and Santorum backward.

The information RCP has nationally over the course of the race is interesting.

Romney started around 20 and has stayed consistent in popularity.
Gingrich started about the same then dipped for a while before rapidly rising back up.
Paul stared around 10 and has stayed consistent in popularity.
Perry did the opposite of Gingrich, started low, surged up quite a lot, then collapsed.

According to these they also state he is second in NH

http://www.infowars.com/new-poll-ron-paul-retains-strong-second-place-in-new-hampshire/

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/202355-poll-paul-huntsman-losing-ground-in-new-hampshire-

To be fair, in, this is the race to the extreme to get the nomination before the race back to the middle in the general election. The crazy gets dulled for everyone.

I still see your point though. I'm usually not terribly interested in primaries, so I'm kinda apathetic right now. Legislating morals, though, is something that I think you incorrectly label as a bygone era. It seems to be the route we're headed, not the last vestiges of such an approach.

I do not want to see Santorum win the nomination..mostly because he comes off as a douchebag. The whole "beer" thing...

He also has disturbing policies/ideas. Some of his ideas are awesome, however...can't be an uptight jerk about Santorum about all of his ideas even though I want to. It would be nice if we could narrow it down to Romney and Paul. I feel Paul would be the best person to debate Obama. Romney would do decently. I think Romney would have been a better match-up for Obama in '08.

A Paul nomination would be so fascinating to watch because he's to the left of Obama on many issues, particularly ones having to do with war and foreign policy.

Paul is the only republican candidate who I could actually vote for against Obama. All the rest are war hungry barkers and have idiotic ideas when it comes to social issues.

It'll probably be Romney who wins, though. Santorum has no shot.

America will once again vote for someone to rape their country to death.

A Paul nomination would be so fascinating to watch because he's to the left of Obama on many issues, particularly ones having to do with war and foreign policy.

What's interesting is that a century ago, Paul would have been considered far right, not far left. Less government, fiscal responsibility, self-determination. But when both parties in America are basically neo-Soviets pledged to Israel, I suppose the discourse naturally skews.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
What's interesting is that a century ago, Paul would have been considered far right, not far left.

It's interesting that vague, barely defined terms have a history of meaning completely different things?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Do you think Gingrinch is competing more with Romney voters or Santorum voters?

I might not have understood it well, but I never thought Gingrich was really vying for the evangelical christian vote. I actually thought Gingrich was doing more to siphon from Romney than Santorum/Perry.

His popularity in SC and Fla sort of argue against that, so I might have the wrong idea. If it is really 3 major candidates trying to be the Christian "non-Romney", things couldn't look better for Mitt honestly, that is until 2 of them drop out. The problem is, they might divide some votes and caucuses between them, which makes Mitt even more likely.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
According to these they also state he is second in NH

This isn't really surprising, as NH has a much more "secular" populace, at least non-evangelical. Romney has it almost guaranteed, but Paul should do better than Santorum there.

Again, I'm not sure about Gingrich... he is a slippery bastard

Originally posted by Digi
To be fair, in, this is the race to the extreme to get the nomination before the race back to the middle in the general election. The crazy gets dulled for everyone.

oh, for sure, thats what my last line was about. Even if this isn't something you are worried about, Santorum wont beat Obama in a general election where this crazy doesn't fly.

Originally posted by Digi
I still see your point though. I'm usually not terribly interested in primaries, so I'm kinda apathetic right now. Legislating morals, though, is something that I think you incorrectly label as a bygone era. It seems to be the route we're headed, not the last vestiges of such an approach.

I didn't label legislating morals as a bygone era, I labeled Santorum's stance on such things from a bygone era. For instance, he would be in favor of states legislating against birth control and his stances on families. Sure, there might be a surge of these feelings in some political spheres, but it does allude back to a much earlier age in American politics.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I feel Paul would be the best person to debate Obama. Romney would do decently. I think Romney would have been a better match-up for Obama in '08.

I agree, I think watching Paul talk and debate is amazing, and that would be an interesting election, but Romney would almost certainly do better in terms of being able to beat Obama.

Originally posted by inimalist
I didn't label legislating morals as a bygone era, I labeled Santorum's stance on such things from a bygone era. For instance, he would be in favor of states legislating against birth control and his stances on families. Sure, there might be a surge of these feelings in some political spheres, but it does allude back to a much earlier age in American politics.

Ah.

YouTube video

😄

that was good

haha, to spam my own thread (as always) I found this humerous and also an interesting comparison between conservatism in America and Canada.

This article comes from the National Post, Canada's premiere conservative news paper, often to the right of even our Conservative party politicians:

Kelly McParland: Maybe GOP should just skip 2012 altogether

At some point the temptation may become overwhelming for some kindly party elder to sit down with other Republicans, pat them gently on the hand, thank them for their effort but suggest that just maybe 2012 isn’t their year for the White House and perhaps it would be wise to begin planning now for a better showing in 2016.

There’s no shame in losing, if you put in your best effort. Little kids all over the country have had the talk with Dad or Mom, when they didn’t make the local hockey team or weren’t asked back for a second crack at ballet school. Look at it as a challenge: a chance to bear down, get in some extra practise and be that much better when the next set of tryouts comes around.

For a brief moment on Wednesday, Republicans thought that maybe they’d squared the circle. They didn’t have to vote for Mitt Romney, but could still put forward a reasonable conservative for the showdown against President Obama. Then someone thought to Google Rick Santorum (which no one had done earlier because nobody thought he had a snowball’s chance of winning.)

Uh oh. Santorum isn’t just against abortion for any reason, he’s got doubts about any kind of contraception at all. He considers intelligent design a valid scientific theory and at one time wanted it taught in science class (a suggestion he’s backtracked on to some extent). He figures Iran is the centre of “Islamic fascism” and says he’d bomb its nuclear sites if he was president and they didn’t shape up. And he thought it was “remarkable for a black man” like Obama to have moderate vies on abortions, given that black folks have so many abortions.

This is not a great way to become president. Even among conservatives, it’s a bit much to oppose any kind of contraception, from cold showers to gritting your teeth and locking your knees together. If this was the 14th century, Santorum would presumably be against chastity belts on the grounds that princesses should just say no. Being a politician, Santorum finds a way to dance around his position, arguing that states have the right to pass anti-contraception laws, and Washington and the courts should stay out of it:

[quote]“You shouldn’t create constitutional rights when states do dumb things,” Santorum said. “Let the people decide if the states are doing dumb things get rid of the legislature and replace them as opposed to creating constitutional laws that have consequences that were before them.”

This is the same argument the South used to support slavery, and which GOP candidates have used to oppose same-sex marriage. It’s not that they hate gays, you see, it’s just that they support the states’ right to make anti-gay laws if they see fit. “States’ rights” has become a convenient way for federal politicians to support positions that provoke opposition in a large segment of the population, while pretending it’s all about a constitutional point of principle.

As for “intelligent design” — well, we’ve been through that. If people want to believe God put people on Earth, it’s entirely their right. But religion isn’t science, and teaching it as such just doesn’t attract a lot of support. And pledging to bomb Iran may feel good when you spit it out, but the U.S. just recently pulled its last forces out of Iraq and can hardly wait for the chance to exit Afghanistan as well. Provoking a new war against the most fanatic country in the region would seem more than just a little ill-advised, if only from the perspective of timing. (The Iraq war cost maybe $1 trillion, Rick, at a time you’re vowing to reduce spending)

So after working their way through brief flings with Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich, all of whom were tried and rejected after voters got to know them better and decided they weren’t quite ready for prime time (not to mention having some really weird ideas), you can imagine how Iowa voters felt when they stumbled on Rick Santorum and thought, hey, maybe this guy isn’t quite as unelectable as we thought! Only to discover that — surprise! — he is.

Poor GOP. Really guys, maybe it’s time to take a pass. Look around, find someone for 2016 who can actually win votes outside six or eight of the most fervently religious pockets of the country. It’s a big country, it can be done.[/quote]

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/05/kelly-mcparland-maybe-gop-should-just-skip-2012-altogether/

That is a problem that has been on the horizon for the Republicans since 2000, at least. When you "rally the base" you have to push your whole platform to get their support and end up with candidates they like but come election time the base isn't large enough to let you win. If you've been going more and more extreme to sustain the excitement in the base eventually things will drop out from under you when the candidates you chose don't appeal to anyone else.

If they lose this election it might force party leaders to reevaluate their tactics. Moving further away from identification with the evangelicals while still upholding their issues seems like a good move, they're certainly not a group that will look kindly on democrats while being seen with them puts a lot of people on edge.

Oh and according to this it doesnt even look like ron paul is in NH

🙄

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Oh and according to this it doesnt even look like ron paul is in NH

🙄

It's pretty hilarious that Huntsman is still up there, he's doing the worst in every individual contest and on the national stage.