Newt’s Bankrupt and Romney’s Going to Profit

I've been quiet lately, and not because there isn't a lot going on: The Supreme Court is hearing arguments about the healthcare law ("Obamacare" to some), the story of the shooting in Florida continues to evolve and grow as a movement, and the Republican Primary is still grinding on, albeit with a couple new bumps in the road. Since I don't want to talk about the healthcare law and I can't do the Martin case justice right now, I'll stick to my comfort zone and hash out the latest Republican Nomination craziness. 

So, what has happened?

Newt's "Southern Revival" has become a Southern Foreclosure. The Gingrich campaign is underwater on its mortgage. It's not that it hasn't had its ups and downs, and it's not even that it hasn't been worse off before, but now that it is crunch time they simply didn't deliver when they needed to in the southern states. With Santorum taking Louisiana and no potentially Gingrich friendly states until May, there's good reason for even his most ardent supporters to be cynical. I think there is one main reason behind Newt's decline, and I'd be surprised if his campaign staff didn't agree: No full debates since February and no new ones on the calendar. Newt's strength is in his verbal performance, and when he can't show that off and doesn't have the money to beat back negative ads or campaign as effectively as the others, his campaign loses steam. Now that they're laying off a third of their campaign staff and losing his campaign manager to "refocus" the campaign, it is difficult to impossible to see a scenario where Newt will have the funds, let alone the momentum or delegates, to make another splash before Tampa. 

Santorum shouldn't want Gingrich out after all. Santorum has said for weeks that if Newt Gingrich dropped out of the race he could beat Mitt Romney in the primaries. Gingrich said similar things about Santorum back when momentum was on his side. What is proving really interesting is that likely neither are correct, but Santorum is almost certainly wrong. Yes, Santorum has won a fair number of states and he did win Louisiana recently, but he has gone from leading Romney nationally to trailing him by 10 points. I know, these things seem to change every week in this election cycle and this may be a fluke, but I don't think it is. In addition to slipping poll numbers, recent polls show that more Gingrich supporters back Romney as their second choice than Rick Santorum. If Gingrich was out of the race and the numbers were run again, Romney's lead over Santorum actually expands to 15 points. Apparently, despite what Rick has been saying lately, he and Gingrich don't have the same base of support and his numbers against Romney actually look worse in a more head-to-head situation. What does that mean for Santorum? There's trouble on the horizon, and any Tampa strategy against Romney is looking less and less feasible as time goes on.

Romney, despite his best efforts, is gaining momentum. The man who brought you the trees are the right height, the $10,000 off the cuff bet, and some less than believable southern pandering about grits continues to be the Teflon warrior. I don't doubt the man's intelligence, but he has a knack for saying things that the media loves to replay non-stop and would give most campaign managers a heart attack. That said, his numbers are improving nationally, his financial situation is rebounding, and it looks like he can actually wrap up the nomination before Tampa if things go well. So why all the "good" news for Romney? Personally, I think the voters are tired. We all liked the idea of being involved and many of us liked the idea of the 2012 primaries lasting long enough for our states to make a difference, but after three full months of this mess and its unpredictability, people are getting weary of trying to stay informed about each week's gaffes, polls, and primaries and are looking for something stable. That something is Romney, and the chaos that threatened to take him down may actually propel him to the nomination. And now that polls show that Gingrich supporters are more likely to support Romney than Santorum, bad news for Newt is good news for Mitt, and it looks like there's going to be quite a bit of bad news for Newt in the next month. Romney may not have it wrapped up yet, but Santorum is slipping (not surprising given his own unpredictable and polarizing nature) and Gingrich never bounced back, so it's his to lose right now.

Ron Paul... You know what, I just don't know anymore. I get mail and emails from all the campaigns, and Ron Paul's comes across as the most angry and self-deluded. Despite the delegate math, the inability to win a single state's primary or caucus (remember the Paul's campaign strategy to win the caucus states?), and no momentum of any sort in the polls to indicate things will change, Ron Paul's campaign continues to proclaim that victory is within their grasp and they'd be doing better if things weren't stacked against them, and so on. That would be a lot more believable if they hadn't been saying the same thing in these emails for months and that victory was actually even within their field of vision much less grasp, but it's a campaign line they haven't tired of. Apparently his supporters haven't either, since money bomb after money bomb raises millions to pour back into the campaign. I don't understand this, to be honest. I like a lot of things about Paul but also have big reservations, which I've discussed previously. But at this point in the game, who in their right mind thinks he can somehow pull off a convention strategy and overthrow not just Romney, but the other two as well? It just doesn't add up. Polls show that Paul's supporters are very loyal, but he's barely a blip on the radar as a second choice candidate from the others. If any one of them drops out, it strengthens one of the others, not Paul. It's not the media, or the establishment, or whoever that is "against" Paul or somehow keeping him down, it's reality. The reality is that despite all the excitement, the seemingly endless supply of grassroots money and vocal support, and the unique ideas, the overwhelming majority of people are not willing to vote for him in the primaries. Potential national election match up polls are pointless when no one will vote to make you a national candidate. If Paul supporters are still donating millions to make a statement or express dissatisfaction, that I can at least respect. Otherwise, I can dig a pit in my back yard if they're looking for a place to dump money.

Well, that's all for now. For things coming up, I think that Romney will sweep the upcoming April 3rd primaries and strengthen his delegate count further, Santorum will continue to fight to get a stronger foothold in the Romney-friendly April contests, Gingrich will likely conserve what resources he has left and stay visible but low-key until May when the calendar looks friendlier, and Ron Paul will continue on.

-M 

It’s Not That Simple: MS and AL Don’t Clarify Things.

Well, the results are (mostly) in, and Santorum will win both Mississippi and Alabama. I’m a little surprised he pulled it off since his numbers had been slipping, but there are some important take away points from tonight.

1.      Tonight changes nothing from the perspective of the race. Think about it. How are we in a different place than we were last night? Mitt Romney still isn’t pulling the “conservative” crowd over to his side, but still has a substantial delegate lead. Rick Santorum is still riding his momentum with the conservative base and winning states, but he didn’t expand his lead over Gingrich tonight in any significant way due to the narrow margin of his victories. Gingrich is still behind and not catching up any. He is treading water in third place, no better or worse than he was before. Ron Paul still exists. At the end of the day, nothing actually changed.
2.      There’s no reason to expect Gingrich to drop out after not winning MS and AL, particularly since he almost pulled it off. He’ll point out that he beat Mitt Romney in both states and came very close to catching Santorum as well. He’ll point to the dissatisfaction of the conservative voter with Romney and the strength of his showing. As mentioned in point 1, since little has changed, there’s no new reason for Gingrich to drop, and arguably less since he will pick up almost as many delegates as Santorum tonight. I know Santorum’s supporters will be ruffled by this, but let’s face it- people wanted Santorum out after he fell flat in South Carolina and not listening to them when his campaign was on life support turned out to be a good decision. Santorum might be able to beat Romney without Gingrich in the race, but the flip side of that applies too. Other than the marginal delegate lead over Gingrich (substantially less than Romney’s lead over him) there’s just no reason for him to say Gingrich should drop. It’s not that Newt is spoiling it for him, it’s that they’re spoiling it for each other. Either of them could feel much more justified in asking Paul to drop and try to support them in taking down Romney, but they know they wouldn’t gain any significant support by doing that so they’re leaving that issue alone since Paul’s supporters are much more candidate-loyal.
3.      At the end of the night, no one is happy. Sure, Santorum gets to claim “victory”, but it’s not significant enough to help him chip away at Romney’s lead or expand the lead over Gingrich. He’ll essentially tread water despite the victories. The delegate math is still bad for him and he knows it. Romney gets to claim that he performed better than expected, but his pandering in the South didn’t deliver him any wins and only provided more material for media jokes about the odd things he says in states when he’s working a little too hard to “fit in”. He’s still in the best delegate position, but every big delegate take where he doesn’t expand his lead is one step closer to a brokered convention. Gingrich gets to point out that his campaign came from behind to snag almost as many delegates as the winner, but in reality it is clear his Southern strategy is  not working. He needed wins tonight for visual momentum if nothing else and he didn’t get it. The delegate math is also ugly for him and despite picking up the 2nd place in both contests tonight, it’s also not going to change the balance for him significantly.
4.      Santorum and Gingrich should be watched. As mentioned above, there’s no more reason for Newt to drop now than before, so Rick isn’t going to get that lucky. What is odd are the comments Newt made at an event about teaming up against Romney in the ad war and the compliments he sent Santorum’s way tonight at his concession speech, all the while blasting Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. Even if it is forged out of desperation, some sort of arrangement between Gingrich and Santorum could be in the works.

That’s all I’ve got for now. Everyone seems a little annoyed (no matter which side you’re on) tonight, and I think that’s the atmosphere we’re going to be running with all the way to Tampa.

-M

Super Tuesday Results: More Craziness Ahead!

Well, most results are in and I'm going to call it: There's no clean closure to this Republican Race in sight. 

At this point, that's basically bad news for all Republican nominees involved since the results ensured that no candidate will drop out and this carnival will continue. Here are my thoughts on each of the candidates and what tonight meant for them.

Mitt Romney: Mitt Romney will most likely be crowned tonight's big winner thanks to a win, albeit a close one, in Ohio. No, his campaign isn't really in better shape than it was before. No, he didn't win virtually any counties outside the major metro areas in Ohio. But he won, and that's what matters for delegates and momentum. Romney's real problem is that stubborn elephant in the room that he still isn't winning over those that call themselves "very conservative" or people making less than $100,000 a year in these important swing states. Even more concerning, at least in my opinion, is that he was only able to garner 60% of the vote in Virginia against Ron Paul. 40% of voting Virginians, a state supposed to be friendly to Romney (if pundits are to be believed), wouldn't vote for Romney when the only alternative on the ballot was the "weakest" candidate in the race from a national electability standpoint. Virginia shows that there are still a lot of Not-Romney voters out there, and they're just not willing to come around to him yet. Personally, I think most of them will come around in November if it comes to that. Still though, at the end of the night he has the most delegates and won the most states, all of which were pretty predictable outside of Ohio, and that is what will matter for momentum. He's still the "inevitable" nominee to beat and he will still have the most delegates, the most machine-like campaign, and likely the most money. The overall dynamic of the race really hasn't changed one bit from the Romney perspective, and that's at least "okay" if you're a Romney fan. The crater the Romney campaign has been driving themselves into is that independents and conservative Democrats, must-win candidate groups if he wants to beat President Obama in November, like him less and less as the campaign goes on. Whether the ads come from him or his Super PAC, the negative tone and frequent gaffes have really hurt his image and he's got a lot of work to do if he wants to improve it before November. 

Rick Santorum: Rick Santorum did relatively well tonight too, which means he'll be sticking around a lot longer as well. Tennessee and Oklahoma were significant wins for him, especially since Gingrich was coming from behind and hurting Santorum enough to possibly propel either Romney or Gingrich into the winner's seat in those races. Unfortunately for both of them, Santorum hung on and won those states. Unfortunately for Paul, Santorum also won North Dakota pretty handily. Winning Ohio would have been huge news for Santorum, but as it is he didn't come out of the day too badly. Interestingly, if he had been able to win over the voters who cast ballots for Rick Perry or Jon Huntsman (I really, really, really don't see the point in voting for people not even running anymore, by the way), he could have won Ohio, but those people made their stubborn views known today. His numbers with women are still weak and he still doesn't have a lot of appeal to the more moderate or independent voters, both of which could be major issues if he ended up with the nomination, but I find it unlikely that he can come from behind in the all-or-nothing states and grab the reins away from Romney, who already has a significant delegate lead.

Newt Gingrich: Tonight was a disappointing night for Newt Gingrich, no matter what his campaign may be saying right now. Yes, he won Georgia, his delegate-rich home state and a state he worked very hard in the past few weeks. Yes, he came from behind in the polls in Tennessee and Oklahoma and did considerably better than most would have predicted, but he really needed a couple wins to get some momentum back on his side. The good news for the Gingrich campaign is there are a couple more contests in the next few days he may fare well in, and with a decisive win in Georgia his campaign can continue fighting on. However, and I really don't love saying this, I think his campaign is probably done for in the next several weeks. Gingrich isn't doing that badly in delegates in all honesty, he's only 40ish behind Santorum, but as long as both of them are in the race it will be almost impossible for either of them to grab enough delegates away from the other to stop Romney. Even combined they would trail Romney, but there are some factors that can't be predicted that might have allowed either of them to perform better if the other weren't in the race. At any rate, Santorum's moment in the spotlight appears it is going to continue, and that's bad news for Gingrich. Unless Santorum somehow implodes spectacularly and releases his delegates to Gingrich, a highly unlikely event, Gingrich will need an act of God to get enough momentum back on his side to seize the nomination. I don't necessarily think he should drop out, the voters have delivered enough delegates to both Gingrich and Santorum to let them know that they are liked, but they can't all be liked at the same time and beat Romney. 

Ron Paul: Tonight was a mixed night for Ron Paul too. He performed pretty well against Romney in the two-man Virginia contest, and he came in second in North Dakota and Idaho, all of which will be loudly proclaimed as wins by his exuberant campaign spokesmen who like to keep my inbox flooded with lengthy emails. Despite the fact he didn't win any of them, he just did better than most people were willing to give him credit for, the Paul campaign will still happily jump up on the soapbox that all but his most ardent supporters are growing weary of and claim the establishment is afraid of him and he'd be winning if it were a fair fight. Considering he has received a good bit of air time and debate time this election cycle and he's one of the most consistently financed candidates, I have a hard time believing it's not a fair fight for him, but that's not the point. The point is Virginia, North Dakota, and Idaho all went pretty well for him. More interesting than those states, or the Paul campaign's pattern of rhetoric, at least in my opinion, is that Paul came in second in Vermont. I hadn't heard near as much speculation about his performance in Vermont, so his ability to beat Santorum and Gingrich on the east coast will be a legitimate strength to proclaim for the Paul camp in the weeks to come. Alaska's results aren't all in yet, but it appears he will not do nearly as well as many had predicted there. Not only will he not get the win he was needing, it looks like he won't com in second either, which is disappointing considering he was the only candidate to visit Alaska. This Super Tuesday performance means the point I made last time, and have been making for some time now, still remains: Ron Paul cannot, and will not, win the nomination proceeding like this. Before you send me angry messages or comments about how he'd win in a fair fight (and in the future, please explain to me what a fair fight is, I really don't know what you're talking about there), do the math. Paul hasn't won a single state, despite claiming several times he was about to win one. He just can't appeal to enough voters overall to deliver a win for his campaign, and without some wins, and some big ones, he can't rack up enough delegates to get the nomination. Right now he has less than a sixth of the delegates that Romney has. If Gingrich, Santorum, or both, choose to drop out and release their delegates, you know damn well they're not going to ask them to support Paul. Don't get me wrong, I like Paul. I like some of his ideas and I respect his consistency and conviction, but if you think he can still win the nomination with a shortage of friendly states ahead for him on the calendar and all-or-nothing state contests nearing, you're living in a fantasy world. 

Anyway, I've rambled on long enough for now. The bottom line is that there is still no decisive winner and the Republican voters are still very divided. Super Tuesday took us one big step closer to a brokered convention, and the Obama campaign must be loving the thought of that. 

As always, your thoughts, questions, and rants are welcome.

-M

Super Tuesday Will Be Super Frustrating

Tomorrow really is important. Depending on how things turn out, it could essentially finish, or rejuvenate, the Gingrich campaign. A poor showing on Romney’s part could send his campaign into a downward slide since Ohio, Georgia, etc. are states that are probably a better indication of the overall Republican voter “base” than most of those that have voted so far. A strong showing could put Romney in such a strong delegate position that his momentum may be unbeatable. Santorum is a bit less predictable. If he performs strongly it will be a win for him in that it will strongly damage his other “conservative” opponent, Newt Gingrich, as well as show Romney that he’s still in real trouble. If he performs poorly, it could also send his campaign into a downward spiral he may not be able to recover from. Ron Paul’s performance is less important unless he somehow pulls off a full out win and puts the other candidates on notice. In all likelihood though, he’ll place 3rd or 4th in most states and continue to trickle in some delegates here and there. Since there’s almost no chance of him shutting down his campaign, and a comparably small chance of him having a chance at the nomination, his performance won’t really change anything. I know Newt and Santorum have pledged to continue on regardless of Super Tuesday performance (a mistake, in my opinion) but a Ron Paul-esque performance for either of them in the Super Tuesday contests could very well kill off their campaigns even if they make noise about continuing on. With that in mind, Super Tuesday could be super frustrating for GOP voters since even though it will have a large effect on the campaigns and a lot of delegates are up for grabs, no one will likely drop out and they will continue dragging their campaigns out to leech some delegates away from the others and make more attacks and mess for the Democrats to use against them closer to November. 

We’ll see how things turn out, but don’t expect Super Tuesday to reduce the field of candidates. They’re going to stick around for quite some time yet.

-M

Michigan and Arizona: Did Anything Really Change?

Well the results are in and Mitt Romney can breathe a momentary sigh of relief. As expected, Romney took Arizona by a wide margin. He also managed to win Michigan with a little more breathing room than many were expecting. So, Romney lives to fight another day. He didn’t suffer the embarrassment of losing his “home” state he spent so dearly to try and win, and he’ll likely get a fundraising and momentum bump from the Michigan win since it wasn’t a given like the Arizona win. But other than Romney being able to fight on with the validity of his campaign relatively unquestioned, did the Michigan and Arizona wins really change anything? Not really.

There’s no question that a Santorum upset in Michigan would have made a mess of things for Romney. With his Super Tuesday prospects looking mixed, funding situation becoming much more like that of his opponents, and the hits he has taken to his image nationally, it’s even possible that Romney would have had some calling for him to step out of the race and allow for a stronger, less damaged candidate to take the lead. Luckily for Romney, and potentially the GOP’s stability for the rest of the primary season, that didn’t happen. One has to wonder if the Arizona debate had some effect in Michigan, particularly since Santorum’s edge started disappearing right after mediocre debate performance on his part. Only 35% of respondents in CNN’s exit polls indicated the debate affected their vote, and that segment saw a higher preference for Romney than Santorum, as well as a slight increase for Gingrich. Regardless of the methods or reasons though, Romney wins. Since the momentum of the race didn’t see a big shift in Michigan after all though, we’re still in the same murky waters we were before.

Romney’s still the front runner, his campaign just isn’t as well off financially as it used to be and his image issues haven’t improved. Santorum is still loud and unpredictable and apparently doing a decent job appealing to the tea party and harder-line religious conservatives. Ron Paul is still trudging on and still has no immediate prospects for winning a state. Gingrich’s apparent strategy to pretend February, outside of a debate, doesn’t exist still has pundits and his supporters sitting on the sideline wondering if that gamble can possibly pay off. 

And that’s pretty much it. No big changes happened or should be expected before Super Tuesday. There’s no reason for anyone to drop out or consider dropping out, and there’s no new momentum to give any particular candidate a big bump going into Super Tuesday. So sit back, relax, and enjoy the show. It’s far from over.

-M

Arizona Republican Debate- Who Won?

I’ll keep my post debate review relatively short for once, primarily because I’m running really short on sleep and we’ve all proven (repeatedly) that trying to predict an outcome in this GOP nomination contest is impossible.

Last night’s CNN Republican nominee debate in Arizona was the first Republican debate in a long time and the only one for some time to come. Lots has happened since the last debate (Santorum victories, Romney’s slip in the polls, Gingrich’s slide, etc.) so a lot of eyes were on this one to see four things based off each candidate. I’ll list them below and provide my “answer.”

1- Can Rick Santorum command the debate stage as a front runner and give people a reason to continue driving his momentum through Super Tuesday and beyond? 

No. Santorum stumbled over himself again tonight (like he has in earlier debates) and did not project the confidence, composure, or grasp of the issues (or his own past statements) to give undecided GOP voters any reason to support him. He’s been receiving a lot of mixed reviews for his performance tonight, and that’s a loss in itself. He needed to project confidence and the composure to be president, and he failed. He got some good hits in on Romney, but took a relative beating on his record in the process.

2- Can Mitt Romney promote a new, friendlier, image and stop his slide in the polls? 

Eh… maybe. Mitt had one of his better debates tonight but it wasn’t spectacular in any way. He had what sounded like his friendliest debate audience ever tonight, and still got himself in hot water with them a few times. He amped up all kinds of rhetoric and is now borrowing lines from all three of his competitors to widen his appeal, but it still sounds like the same old Mitt. The debate didn’t hurt him, but I don’t see any big benefit either.

3- Can Gingrich steal the stage and spark a come back?

Again… Eh… maybe. Newt was on his game tonight, but not as the podium pounding anti-media firebrand we saw after his jump (back) to the front of the polls before South Carolina, instead we saw the Newt many of us missed from the rest of the debate season. He was composed, collected, and once again sounded like the smartest guy on stage with pretty straight answers to the questions asked. The crowd seemed to give him the best net response for the evening, and Rick Perry was on hand for social conservative appeal, but it wasn’t a blockbuster performance from someone who probably needed one. So although the “good” Newt, the Newt that fueled his rise initially, was back tonight, I just don’t know if that’s enough any more.

4- Can Ron Paul convince people he can win the nomination tonight?

No. I’m actually afraid he may have hurt himself a little tonight. Paul has started to sound like a one line anti-war, pro-state-rights candidate. I know he’s not just that, but that’s all he talked about tonight, and although it’s a popular sentiment, the way he talked you’d think if we stopped fighting battles overseasall our problems would be solved. I know that’s not true, he knows that’s not true, and I think the voters do too. Is he right on the issue of removing almost all our international military presence? Maybe, but he also gets some flak for his Iran views that most voters seem to find naive, so it’s a two-edged sword for him. The point is talking foreign policy, which is one of his weakest platforms from a potential GOP voter perspective, doesn’t help his campaign one little bit and he actually missed a key opportunity to sell his small government platform and economic vision tonight. 

That’s all for now. We’ll see how things play out in the upcoming primaries and I’m sure I’ll have lots to say then. As always, feel free to ask questions, provide comments, and so on.

-M

Colorado, Missouri, and Minnesota: Bad News for Ron Paul Fans and Romney, Good News for Rick Santorum.

Last night's results were a bit of a surprise to me, as it appears they were to a lot of the pundits too. Santorum winning all three contests? There was a collective "What the hell?" around the internet and TV last night, and there are some big implications for future contests despite the initial opinions of pundits that Tuesday wasn't that important. Here are my thoughts:

Santorum just got a huge boost of momentum. Although Missouri's primary was basically an expensive hollow gesture (http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/07/opinion/martin-missouri-primary/index.html), he racked up almost 140,000 votes there, more than twice that of Mitt Romney, and won every county. Every one. Okay, so he's the only one that really campaigned there and Gingrich wasn't even on the ballot, but it's still a huge dose of campaign ad friendly momentum. There was always a chance he'd do well in Minnesota and he did a relatively good job campaigning there too, but his margin of victory over Ron Paul was bigger than anyone I know of predicted. And Colorado, well that just blew me out of the water. That was highly unexpected by most and a blow to Romney and Gingrich. Santorum got a 3 state (2 that actually matter) sweep tonight, and you better believe you're going to be hearing about it for the next couple weeks.

Romney just took a big hit to the "inevitable candidate" image by not just losing one state to Santorum, but multiple ones, and he lost them pretty significantly overall. His campaign ad machine will no doubt take a renewed focus towards attacking his campaign in the upcoming Super Tuesday elections and beyond if things continue in this fashion, but he's going to have to start increasing his overall likability and getting punches in without causing his negative numbers to skyrocket again. Although he is probably still the most likely candidate, I don't think he's going to coast to the nomination like so many expected and I think the ride there (if he gets there) may render him unelectable come November.

Paul fans are in trouble if they still think he can win the nomination. Ron Paul said before Florida that he was putting his focus into caucus states, and he has done a lot of campaigning in Nevada, and made some reasonable time investment in Colorado and Minnesota compared to the others. He even thought he was going to win Minnesota. Despite all that work, he hasn't even come close to winning a state. Sure, his most loyal fans will point to Minnesota or New Hampshire and say "He placed second! That's really good!". Well, sure. But you're not going to win a nomination that way, and those second place performances were his strongest by far to date. He also is highlighting that recent poll showing him placing second nationally behind Romney. I'd offer the sliding Romney likability numbers and his barrage on Gingrich as what you have to thank for that, not anything new that Dr. Paul has done. Yes, I realize there are a lot of primaries still to go, but Ron Paul is the only candidate that hasn't been able to garner enough appeal and support to win a state so far and there's no reason at this point to believe he will be able to in the future. He can't seem to get any momentum going no matter how much time he spends in a state that should be friendly to his views. So my words of warning to Paul followers: Ron Paul is happy to continue this all the way to Tampa with the goal of showing up with as many delegates as possible and making some noise for his beliefs. If that's what you want, continue to donate to his campaign and support that ideology. But you should know that it now appears he's not expecting or planning to win the nomination or being the next President of the United States, so keep that in mind when voting.

Gingrich also had a disappointing night. Although he put little effort into the recent primaries and seems to be placing all his bets on Super Tuesday (a strategy I'm skeptical he has the ground game to pull off), he was at one point projected to potentially win Minnesota or place second, instead he came in fourth. He was supposed to be able to have a good showing in Colorado, and he's nearly tied for last with Dr. Paul. His performance is below expectations but with how little effort he put into these states, it's hard to say what this really means overall. So the question for Gingrich and his supporters now is: Can he pull off an aggressive nationwide campaign for Super Tuesday and grab the momentum back (and some all important delegates)? With Santorum given new life once again and Paul's supporters firmly in their camp, it's going to be difficult.

So instead of a one man race, or a two man race, we have three "front runners" and an overall four candidate circus underway. I hope you bought ringside tickets.

Feel free to comment or ask questions. Just no glitter bombs, please. (Seriously, what is that supposed to accomplish other than make our candidates look like vampires in a Twilight movie?)

-M

What did we learn in Florida? Ugly politics work... And they don't.

With the results in and the pundits having a field day making wild claims on TV about what Florida means for the rest of the primary season, it's time to get down to brass tacks. The real question isn't what Florida means for the rest of the primary season, but what did we learn from it? Did Romney finally show he can unite the Republican party and beat President Obama? Is the style we saw in Florida from Gingrich and Romney going to continue? I offer my thoughts:

What did we learn?

We learned that Romney intends to win this process by any means necessary. He didn't just take off the gloves, he put on boxing gloves and wrapped them in barbed wire. He and his Super PACs spent an absolute fortune, pundits are saying he outspent Gingrich by $15 million in Florida (that means he spent a minimum of 4x more in Florida than Newt), and they spent almost 100% of it on purely negative ads trashing Gingrich. The attack ads (some of which were immediately disproved by Politifact and other sources, but people don't normally look into things that well) aren't a new tactic, we saw how well Romney's negative tactics worked in Iowa when he demolished Gingrich there. What was a new development was how personal he got on the campaign trail. We didn't see the Romney that promotes his business and leadership experience in Florida, we saw a new Romney that focused his energy on lashing out against Gingrich and pointing out his past in Congress and as a consultant and using that as a platform to make attacks against him. I wondered if Romney would go for the throat after being put on notice in South Carolina, but I underestimated how far he was willing to go with it. We also saw a different side of Gingrich than we've seen to date. The skilled orator who highlights his past as a political strategist and conservative while promoting his "grandiose" ideas was missing in Florida. We saw a Gingrich that appeared uncomfortable while under constant attack and failed to defend himself in an effective way against the attacks, whether they were true or false. He appeared frustrated, defensive, and angry and lost his focus on the issues and passion for his ideas we've seen so far. The other candidates, Santorum and Paul, barely register as having done anything in Florida. And before you start yelling at me, yes, I know both of them appeared at some events across the state and participated in the debates. Paul wisely skipped Florida to avoid wasting money and Santorum did what he could with the shoestring budget his campaign has been reduced to. We already knew Ron Paul was in this for the long haul, but it now appears Santorum is going to stay in the race as long as he can despite being flat in the polls too. I still don't think this can continue all the way to the convention despite his claim that it will- Santorum simply doesn't have the money or the loyal base of Paul to make it that far. He will have to win another state if he wants to build any momentum back up, and although that's possible, I don't think it's too probable. 

Did Romney show us he can unite the Republican Party and beat President Obama?

In a word- No. Romney had his strongest performance to date which is certainly important, but he still has a long ways to go to prove he can unite the Republican base and still appeal to any independents in a general election. Florida was a mixed bag for him. Yes, he won the primary and the delegates, but at a great cost. Not only did his campaign spend more than quadruple the amount of money campaigning in Florida than Gingrich (Santorum and Paul won't register on the spending scale compared to either in Florida), he also lost a lot of his appeal to independents and potential Democratic defectors with the way he spent the money. Polls now show Romney's likability numbers have been dropping since his scorched earth attack ad strategy started, and most surprisingly polls now show that Floridians would rather vote for Obama than Romney. This puts a whole new kink in the whole process. It has been assumed up until now that Romney was the most electable candidate and polls to date had shown him as the most likely to beat Obama, but that image of inevitability could be shattered if the way he wins the Republican nomination makes him so unlikable he can't beat Obama. Romney is going to have to find a new way to beat Gingrich if he wants to be the nominee, because his constant negative attacks are taking a toll on his electability and overall appeal. Jabs here and there are fine and are pretty effective, but his current plan is a two edged sword and it will end up cutting him as badly as it cuts his opponents if he isn't careful.

Is the style we saw in Florida from Gingrich and Romney going to continue?

No, I don't think so. Gingrich's concession speech (well, there wasn't really any concession going on in it but I'm not sure what else you'd call it) after the results were almost all in was probably a signal of how his campaign will be run from here on out. He knows he didn't handle the attacks well in Florida and that his own counter attacks failed to do any real damage to Romney and he needs to adjust his strategy if he's going to be the nominee come August. I think Gingrich will stick to what he does best: promote big ideas, rail against Obama and the media when it's beneficial to him, and lay out his vision for "rebuilding" America. He'll have to get some jabs in against Romney here and there, but he needs to appear to rise above the attacks to beat them and I think he now knows that. Romney's campaign machine is too big and well funded not to know that although they won the delegates in Florida, their current direction could cost them the election in November even if it succeeds in getting them the nomination. I think you'll see Romney focus more on railing against Obama and trying to paint himself as someone the "common man" can connect with, because right now he's still not making them believe he is the one that can make the economy work for them again. I think too many of his Gingrich attacks have been called out in Florida and Newt will theoretically be wiser from the mess of Florida and be better prepared for future grilling by the Romney ad machine, so there's no logic in continuing in the vein of relentless negativity. The Super PACs for both will probably keep the anger dialed up for the rest of the process though, and the candidates will of course claim there's nothing they can do about that.

So, like I said after South Carolina: Things are getting fun, and it will be interesting to see where things head. Luckily for my study habits February is a pretty slow month for the campaigning, but let me know what you think and I'll do my best to respond.

-M

Will the Debates Matter in Florida?

With the days until the Florida primary counting down, the debates were once again being closely watched as a potential way for the top two candidates to steal momentum from the other, or even for one of the come from behind candidates to make their case to the voters. I missed Monday's debate (I know, for shame!) but I watched last night's performance with some interest and was a bit dissapointed that it seemed pretty balanced overall. Not that being balanced in performance is a bad thing, it just means that last night's debate, unlike the South Carolina debates, probably isn't going to significantly help or hurt any of the candidates, and that makes me wonder if the debates will even matter in Florida after being so critical in SC.

As far as who did well last night, it's hard for me to say anyone "won" since no one had a spectacular night and they were all a bit mixed.

Romney got some good hits in on Gingrich (hypocritical hits, but I count them as good since Newt didn't hit back effectively to point out the hypocrisy) early and then got back to stumbling over things when diverted from his talking points. is actual performance in questions was pretty mediocre, but his fake moral high ground card may help him out as long as people don't watch his ads or listen to him speak at events.

Gingrich was on the defensive all night and that's a weaker position for him than the offensive, but he seemed to handle the immigration and particularly Israel answers well and that gave him some momentum to close out on. There are two things Newt needs to do if he wants to keep momentum on his side though, and he's not doing them well right now. The first is he needs to stop making outlandish attacks he's not willing to back up. Calling Romney anti-immigrant was a risky play and it backfired. He needs to pay attention to Romney's style- make small numerous attacks that are difficult to counter and then pretend to be morally superior after your attacks. He also desperately needs to be able to counter Romney's attacks more effectively. Romney successfully countered Newt's attacks without having much more substance or any more truth to his statements than Gingrich's attacks had, and unless Gingrich can follow up Romney's attacks with some solid facts or an effectively pointing out Romney's hypocrisy on that issue he's going to appear to be the weaker candidate. I'm sure his debate coach or campaign staff are telling him this too, I just hope he listens or this won't be a two or three man race for long.

Santorum came across much stronger than normal because of his "get back to the issues" plea (you know he had that one up his sleeve waiting for an opportune moment- he's seen how Newt capitalizes off calling out media fluff questions and he wanted a piece), but when asked to explain his own views he stumbles around and doesn't appear prepared. It was also more than a little amusing to see him call for civility and ending attacks and then turn around and use his questions as an opportunity to attack Romney and Newt. He's desperate to do well enough in Florida to regain enough momentum to continue his campaign and it shows.

Ron Paul didn't have to do much defending and people still like his message about constitutional freedoms and the money supply and such, but he also didn't earn any new points or followers since it was pretty much the same old thing all over again. He has his strong anti-establishment young voter base, they're not going anywhere, but they're also not going to matter in Florida since it's an all or nothing state for delegates. The only thing that he might be able to do is kill off Rick Santorum's campaign, but he would need to build a bit more support in Florida to do that. I do think that his message will resonate with some of the elderly voters that remember the "good old days" of cheaper healthcare, not being groped at the airport, and retirement accounts that were solvent, but the elderly vote is probably more likely to gravitate to Romney (partly for looks/style and success in business) and Newt because they make more loud statements about how to fix things than Ron Paul effectively delivers. 

It'll be interesting to see how Florida plays out. I have no idea who will win- Newt has used debates to his advantage thus far, but his performances this week have just been average and that may not be enough to overcome the pre-existing Romney machine advantage in the sunshine state, which is what he needed to do. Romney has done well enough in debates and has been scathing enough in his attacks against Gingrich in Florida events that he may not be gaining new support per se, but he's not giving people a reason to vote for someone else and that's probably all it will take with the others fighting for whatever's left. Newt and Romney will be fighting each other, barring some miraculous Paul or Santorum performance in Florida, for at least a few more states, but Gingrich needs to stay pretty even with Romney in Florida to keep momentum on his side. I do think that Florida might be enough to kill off Santorum if he comes in last- he's out of money and out of momentum and he needs something to put some new life back in his campaign if he's going to be able to continue in Nevada and beyond. If Ron Paul, who's not even actively campaigning in Florida, beats him there then I think he'll have no other option but to drop out. Paul has the luxury of a pretty steady money supply and loyal followers, so he's going to be around as long as he possibly can. 

-M

South Carolina thoughts: What Romney, Gingrich, Paul, and Santorum needs to do now..

South Carolina results are in and Newt Gingrich didn't just beat Mitt Romney, he demolished him as effectively as Romney demolished the competition in New Hampshire. Some people on the internet are upset about this and claiming the Republicans are fractured and grasping at straws. I think this is where things get fun actually. The continuously shifting momentum isn't really a problem as long as it produces a stronger overall candidate in the end. I do have some thoughts on what each of the remaining candidates need to do now though:

Romney has to prove he can appeal to more than 20-30% of the Republican voters, something he has failed to do so far. If he can't, he's screwed. For that (and some other reasons), I personally think that the DNC would prefer to run against Romney than any of the others, but explaining that takes more time than I have right now.

Gingrich has to prove this win wasn't a fluke and that he can adequately counter the concerns about his past (whether those are political or personal) and improve his negative perception numbers. He has momentum on his side right now, and he typically gains the most from the debates, but there are a lot of people out there that still have very negative feelings about him and he needs to win some more of them over. I was one of them, so I know it's possible, but it takes effort on the voters part and that's not something I'd want to be relying on... Voters are lazy. He needs to find a way to make the Republicans that can't stand him now, for one reason or another, more comfortable with the idea of a Gingrich nominee.

Santorum needs money and organization to start doing better again, but I don't think he will. His stances are too extreme even for many social conservatives and he is possibly the worst overall speaker of the bunch. If he continues the tactics that failed him during the S.C. debates of lashing out at all his opponents with exaggerated (and occasionally false) attacks, I think what momentum he has will fade and his campaign will be over in the next few weeks. He would have to replace his attacks, despite his statement tonight that he is running a positive campaign, with real substance and plans, something that he has yet to really do. His pro-family views appeal to some conservatives and we all know by now that he wants to get manufacturing going again, but how any of that translates into policy or action has been poorly defined in debates or ads so far. Any chance for his campaign to survive requires fixing that issue.

As for Ron Paul... well, I don't know that he has to prove anything. He's done better than most early media assessments thought he could, and his message has appealed enough to the voters that all the other candidates are paying attention and adopting more and more of his principles. He seems very happy with that and I'm honestly not sure if Dr. Paul actually wants to be president or not. If he does, he needs to have a primary win and soon to allow him to get enough momentum to have a shot at the nomination. To do that he needs to focus on his strengths and shy away from the issues people aren't comfortable with, like his stance on Iran. Personally, I think he should start talking about how he would fix healthcare. As a physician this should be a strong point for him, but he hasn't used it to his advantage yet and I don't understand why. He also needs to stop rambling during speeches and debates because it's pulling him off his message and dilutes his natural passion. If he can do those things he's still very much in the game and I personally think he has a better shot than Santorum at remaining a viable candidate.

But those are just my ramblings, I'd like to hear your ideas on this one. Reply below and let me know what you think!

-M

Does media bias exist against Ron Paul, for Romney, and for Obama? My response to Beer Barrel Politics:

Today another political blog called Beer Barrel Politics posted a graph and short reflection about the Media "Bias" in politics. I enjoy reading their posts and though it would be interesting, but their take on this troubled me simply because the way they interpreted that graph is part of the problem with our country right now. We like to jump to snap conclusions based off very little information or just enough information to agree with what we want to believe regardless of what more adequate information would actually show us. You can view their post and graph here: http://beerbarrelpolitics.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/media-bias-in-one-chart .

The quote that they summed up their graph with was:

"Here are some common perceptions that this graph dispels:
1) Ron Paul gets abused by the media, is treated unfairly, and does not get the respect he deserves.
2) The media loves establishment politicians like Romney.
3) Back Obama is beloved by the media, and gets disproportionately positive coverage."

This graph is interesting, but it doesn't dispel any of those perceptions simply because the sample size is far too small to claim those perceptions are false or unreasonable. One week of coverage is not nearly enough to claim people that believe any of those perceptions are wrong. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with any of those perceptions, but let me give three quick reasons you don't address with a one-week graph that those things might be true:

1- Ron Paul has received much more positive coverage in the last few weeks since his strong showings in Iowa and New Hampshire than I've ever heard before. However, I, like many others, have heard him repeatedly dismissed as a "fringe" candidate and "unelectable" by a variety of political media pundits.I was actually a Paul supporter back in the 08 primaries and all I heard from the pundits and anchors back then was how he wasn't a realistic candidate, if they remembered to mention him at all. Being ignored totally in a process where name recognition is so crucial could certainly be considered negative by some people. In fact, until recently, was notorious for being ignored at debates. I think a graph showing the amount of time each candidate spoke at a debate, or the number of questions they were asked, would be more relevant to the Ron Paul perception, otherwise you need data going back pre-2008 showing the same information.

2- During the last couple weeks the Bain Capital stories and issues about Romney's taxes have been hot topics, so of course the press about him is mostly negative recently. That doesn't mean it always has been. Romney has long been viewed as the "inevitable" candidate by the media due to his resources and name recognition, and I find it hard to believe that having almost all of the media calling you the likely nominee and talking about your future campaign against Barack Obama like the primaries have already been decided isn't positive coverage. Based off what I've seen about Romney in the press over the last several months, the media has spent a lot more time talking about the strength of his campaign than they have criticizing it. Having major news networks proclaiming you the likely/probable/inevitable/etc. nominee is certainly good news for your campaign (although the Romney camp has done a very poor job at capitalizing off of that), but more importantly it is bad news for all the other candidates who then have to spend time proving they're still competitive to undecided voters. Causing his opponents to have to spend extra time and resources explaining how well they've actually been doing in the polls compared to Romney and trying to tear down that aura of inevitability surrounding his campaign is certainly a good thing for Romney, regardless of whether you consider that positive coverage or not. That doesn't mean they "love establishment politicians", but it does seem to indicate they don't find a lot to criticize about Romney himself that they can turn into media friendly soundbites.

3- For your Obama perception you would need media coverage that covers the last four years. President Obama's level of media appeal and charisma have been declining pretty much since he took office and as such the media has much less incentive to talk about him in a positive light. With his current approval ratings and an upcoming election, I wouldn't expect there to be a lot of positive press for Obama this year, but that doesn't mean you're correct in saying that the perception that the media likes Barack Obama is false, just that the energy, passion, and rhetoric the media seemed to like so much in 2008 is gone and as such they don't spend time talking about it. I don't know if the media is pro-Obama or not, but I think that he's going to have a much harder time in 2012 campaigning on warm fuzzy feelings and completely abstract (and I'd argue mostly empty) promises of "hope" and "change" when the media has spent the last few years reminding Americans how bad the economy is and running stories about his promises that didn't happen or didn't work like he'd hoped they would. I think the media will actually be a stumbling block to his reelection campaign, but that has more to do with current events than the way they have portrayed him in the past. There's simply not enough information in the graph to have any influence on that perception.

The bottom line is this: I don't have the necessary data to go through and counter your graph or I would out of curiosity, but a graph covering six days of data has little to no bearing on any of those perceptions. If you visited Little Rock this past week and saw it was in the 50s and 60s all week, you might say "Well that just dispels the perception that it actually gets cold in the winter down here." and although your observation is true for this tiny window of time, it's certainly false overall. I appreciate the time you put into your posts and the graphs are always fun, but making blanket statements based off too little data never leads to good results. You may think those perceptions are illogical, but your attempt to dispel them is equally so. You can't put sanity back into politics without being informed, and you just don't have enough information here to tell all these other people they're wrong.

-M

Ron Paul gets a raw deal from the pundits...

Tonight's CNN debate was a mess. I thought Fox News did a mediocre job (they normally do) with the debate earlier this week, but tonight CNN managed to make that one look like it had substance. I don't know if you could call anyone a winner tonight, no one really excelled they were so bogged down with personal background garbage, but watching the comments/"scorecards" going up on twitter and facebook I think Ron Paul is getting a raw deal. 


Everyone seems to have Dr. Paul as the weakest performer tonight and I think that's incorrect. In my view, Santorum (who admittedly is my least favorite of the remaining candidates) was the weakest tonight simply because his entire strategy rested on throwing attacks, many of which were completely irrelevant to the issues at hand, at the others and attempting to play a consistent conservative high card with each attack. All three of his opponents put him back in his place repeatedly with answers or stats to counter his attacks and his strategy reeked of desperation and an overall lack of substance. You don't play the "I'm doing well in the polls and I can take on Obama" card and turn around and pout or throw petty personal attacks at your opponents the next second and then not be able to adequately back them up. He did succeed in bruising Romney a bit, but I thought Romney had a pretty good first hour when he managed to inject some passion and excitement in his ideas for the first time I can remember since I started watching the debates. The rest of the night wasn't as great for him, and he did a pretty poor job answering the tax and abortion questions, but I don't think he did badly overall. Likewise, Gingrich has a very strong opening exchange, but you could tell he was a little off his game overall tonight compared to previous debates and I think this personal stuff going on with his angry ex-wife is taking a toll on his concentration regardless of how much of it is true. Paul didn't do a very good job of delivering real answers to several of the questions tonight, which is a bit unusual for him, but his style was smoother than normal and he got some hits in on Santorum simply by countering Santorum's statements against him.  It's the first debate I wish I hadn't watched, but I was curious to see how things played out with Rick Perry off the stage. The dynamic was certainly different, but it's impossible to say how much the field has changed when a debate centers around unimportant personal history and petty attacks instead of the biggest issues facing whoever our next President will be. 


With that said, I think Ron Paul did a lot better tonight than the media is giving him credit for and he deserves to be placed ahead of Rick Santorum in any evaluation of the debate. Paul was able to counter every one of Santorum's attacks and in my opinion did some damage to Santorum's credibility in the way he handled the issues. I may not have Dr. Paul as my top pick in this race anymore, but I won't ignore it when the media ignores his strengths. 

I'm a Ron Paul Defector, but Let Me Explain...

In the second South Carolina debate this week, Rick Santorum said he was the best person for the presidency because he could get results in Washington. While doing so, he criticized Newt Gingrich for the "grandiosity" of his ideas and said that Newt rarely gets results. Although I think that's just factually incorrect, I found it interesting that with the candidates whittled down to the final four, they're finally getting more serious about who can actually accomplish what they preach. Although I explained in my last post why I think Gingrich is the most logical person to get results as President, I want to explain why I think Ron Paul, my other favored candidate in the race, isn't the right choice for the nomination. 

My concern with Ron Paul is exactly Santorum's concern with Gingrich. Ron Paul has a good talk and a lot of pro-liberty/freedom rhetoric, and I do like quite a bit of what he says, but he can't get results out of any of it because he has little to no interest in working with others. I voted for Ron Paul in the 08 Primary, and I do like him as a politician (which is rare for me), but I can't get over the feeling he'd be an incredibly ineffective president. He has been in Congress a very long time and his record reflects his beliefs, which I like. Unfortunately he's largely ignored by both parties and spins his wheels when trying to push for or implement any of his ideas. This is actually a large part of why (other than the intelligence, etc. mentioned previously) I currently favor Gingrich- I think he would actually get results simply because of his history. No, I don't think he sticks to his beliefs as hardline as Paul does, but I don't think you can actually be that inflexible and get anything accomplished in Washington D.C. No, I don't really like parts of Gingrich's personal background, and no, I don't agree with everything he has done (this goes for both though), but he did get results in the 90s working with both sides and I think he could do it again.  Gingrich was instrumental in reaching a bipartisan balanced budget even after his very aggressive campaign to put Republicans into Congress in 94 and he actually got Bill Clinton to sign it eventually. I'm sure there were compromises made along the way, but I can't think of any American right now that doesn't want their government to get back to a balanced budget and put the ridiculous partisan politics aside long enough to actually get some work done. 

Ultimately, I think that's what we need this election, whether Republicans realize it yet or not. You don't need a leader with great ideas that can't get anyone else to support him- the Presidency is not a bubble of total power. We need someone who can get results out of a dysfunctional government and start getting things back on track. Unfortunately I just can't find a way to convince myself that Paul is that candidate. Based off his track record of largely standing alone on issues and being known as "Dr. No" even in his own party, I don't think Paul can get any bipartisan traction going or get many (if any) of his bigger reform goals accomplished. The president can't stand alone and get anything done, and that is exactly what Dr. Paul has done with his time in Congress, no matter how much I respect him and his views.