GOP Nominee

[a completely inoffensive name]

26% reporting and Gingrich is 14​ points ahead. Wow.

EDIT: 65% reporting and Gingrich still has that 14 point lead. 4 counties have not yet reported anything but only 2 counties are still majority Romney, the major cities of Charleston and Columbia.

[PanzerJaeger]

I'm humiliated by the voters in SC. Newt Gingrich is the scum of the earth and I would vote for Barack Obama if it were a one on one.

Yeah, I am sorry PJ, for the first time in my life I thought I might vote Republican, then after watching all these debates and seeing what the GOP base still is, I'm gonna have to go with Obama over that scumbag.

Make that three. I would rather limp along in gradual decline with Obama and have the chance at a clear contrast in 2016 than commit the nation to the kind of kamikaze-style downward spiral a Gingrich presidency would entail. Patriotism has to take precedence over politics.

On to what I hope will be a Florida firewall for Romney.

Newt has earned his SC win. Back a year ago he was not considered a serious candidate. That sentiment gradually changed through the debates. Yes, he comes with lots of political garbage and all that jazz, but the man is an good debater. You can personally dislike him and all, but he's not without merit.

How? By using the democratic playbook against Romney?

Turning every uncomfortable or difficult question back on the moderator and/or media is not skilled debating. It is sophomoric at best, and the fact that the GOP base ate it hook, line, and sinker says a lot about them.

[rvg]

How? By using the democratic playbook against Romney? Turning every uncomfortable or difficult question back on the moderator and/or media is not skilled debating. It is sophomoric at best, and the fact that the GOP base ate it hook, line, and sinker says a lot about them.

If Romney has trouble beating Gingrich into the ground then how the heck does he expect to beat Obama? Obama is a freaking JFK. If anything, South Carolina raises lots of doubts about Romney's electability. Gingrich on the other hand would destroy Obama in debates. Gingrich is far from perfect and has tons of issues, but Romney is no better.

[Lemur]

If Romney has trouble beating Gingrich into the ground then how the heck does he expect to beat Obama?

This is a very legitimate question. Whatever anyone thinks of Obama's policies, we can all agree the man knows how to campaign. But if the choice for Repubs is now down to Romney, Gingrich and (distantly) Santorum, I dunno ... I guess Xiahou is in the right of it, that Romney is the leper with the most fingers.

[PanzerJaeger]

If Romney has trouble beating Gingrich into the ground then how the heck does he expect to beat Obama?

Because GOP primary voters are completely removed from the general election electorate, more so than they have been since Goldwater. Romney is polling better than Obama in swing states among people who will vote in the general. I wonder how Gingrich fares. It is difficult to imagine voters in the critical suburbs of Ohio and Pennsylvania, much less Wisconsin or Indiana, pulling the lever for him.

Obama is a freaking JFK. If anything, South Carolina raises lots of doubts about Romney's electability. Gingrich on the other hand would destroy Obama in debates. Gingrich is far from perfect and has tons of issues, but Romney is no better.

Why do you think Gingrich would destroy Obama in debates? He's a one trick pony, and that trick only goes over well with a very select group of voters. The conservative base hates the media, but attacking them will not resonate with the vast swathe of independents needed to win in November.

[rvg]

Because GOP primary voters are completely removed from the general election electorate, more so than they have been since Goldwater. Romney is polling better than Obama in swing states among people who will vote in the general. I wonder how Gingrich fares. It is difficult to imagine voters in the critical suburbs of Ohio and Pennsylvania, for example, pulling the lever for him.

Romney has been blasting Obama for the past 12 months while Obama hasn't as much as laid a finger on Romney. Yet. Obama is a powerhouse of charisma and Romney cannot compete with him in that field. Romney cannot effectively criticize Obamacare without looking like a total hypocrite. Obama hasn't done anything to reign in Wall Street, but Romney cannot (or rather will not) call him out on that either. In the meantime the economy is slowly improving. Then comes in the question of character. Despite disagreeing with Obama on just about everything I believe that he is a good and genuine man. I can describe Romney in three words: used car salesman. I understand that many used car salesmen might take offense at being equated to Mitt Romney and for that I apologize in advance.

Why do you think Gingrich would destroy Obama in debates? He's a one trick pony, and that trick only goes over well with a very select group of voters. The conservative base hates the media, but attacking them will not resonate with the vast swathe of independents needed to win in November.

Gingrich's tactics reflect the best approach at any given moment. For example, he tried to run a clean campaign on 2011, saw that it didn't work and adjusted accordingly. Same with the debates: there's nothing to suggest that he is a one trick pony. Obama on the other hand is not that great of a debater: last time he grabbed the nomination because Hillary bled most of her superdelegates.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Tonight was not a good night for Ron Paul's presidental campaign.

Tonight was an outstanding victory for Ron Paul's message.

Ron Paul's numbers:
2008: 15,773
2012: ~75,700

The exit polls don't lie. The young libertarians are the new wave for the GOP...once the GOP decides to embrace them. Those that follow Ron Paul are unlikely to switch back to neoconservatism. It will not happen this election, and Ron Paul is too old for 2016, but once Obama puts the nail in Romney/Gingrich's campaign, the GOP has nowhere to turn to except the ultra religious or the libertarians.

God help us if they choose the former.

[rvg]

Some day we'll get a viable third party out of it, and it'll destroy these status-quo machines we call parties.

That will be the day when America wins.

[a completely inoffensive name]

There's just a ton of Libertarians out there, though. Either you're a libertarian because you want small government or you're a libertarian because you don't want social conservatives trying to run your life.

Some day we'll get a viable third party out of it, and it'll destroy these status-quo machines we call parties.

3rd parties are hopeless in the American system. Don't count on a viable 3rd party ever, it is a pipe dream.

It is inevitable that the GOP needs a fresh coat of paint, but they are still stagnating with the good ole boys club of the 80s, 90s, and the Bush decade. As soon as Gingrich looked strong, the base flocked away from Romney, they don't want a moderate. The GOP base as it stands today is too extreme, too radical, too gullible, too prejudiced, too religious and too stupid to understand who is the best candidate to go up against Barack Obama.

If the GOP base was full of smart people, Pawlenty would be standing in victory right now, not scumbag #2. In time, this will have to change.

[a completely inoffensive name]

History says you're right-ish, but I do hope you're wrong. If the Libertarian cause is absorbed the into the GOP, it will have to come with too much social conservative and neo-conservative leanings. Its an Old Boys Club, and nobody gets the nod if they don't support the ultra-wealthy (who tend to support very non-libertarian causes quietly and with lots of money).

What I am saying is that in time, the old boys will be dead/out of the game and libertarians will not need to deal with neoconservatives anymore. The funny thing about the 1% being in charge, is that there is only 1% of them. Young republicans don't relate to them, they hate them and are opposed on a moral basis to neoconservatism on almost every single topic, especially foreign policy. It will be a war which is being waged in its early stages as we speak, and someone new is taking the top dog spot.

[PanzerJaeger]

Romney has been blasting Obama for the past 12 months while Obama hasn't as much as laid a finger on Romney. Yet.

False. Obama's campaign has been attacking Romney for months now, as they know that he is the only viable candidate left capable of unseating him. Did you miss Obama's press conference where he jumped on board Gingrich's bandwagon and trotted out various business leaders attacking Bain?

Obama is a powerhouse of charisma and Romney cannot compete with him in that field.

That is certainly not a point in favor of Gingrich, one of the most despised politicians in America.

Romney cannot effectively criticize Obamacare without looking like a total hypocrite.

Neither can Gingrich, who supported the individual mandate on a federal level in 2008.... 2008!... long after Romney abandoned the notion.

Obama hasn't done anything to reign in Wall Street, but Romney cannot (or rather will not) call him out on that either.

So Romney will not lump a group of independent, competing businesses into a single group for the purposes of making broad brush, ham-handed populist attacks against them, the same kind of attacks Gingrich recently launched against private equity firms. That sounds like the very definition of a proper GOP candidate. If anti-Wall Street populism is what you are looking for in a candidate, you may want to consider the Democratic Party, or occupying something.

In the meantime the economy is slowly improving. Then comes in the question of character. Despite disagreeing with Obama on just about everything I believe that he is a good and genuine man.

Again, that is not a point in favor of Gingrich, who is by all account an awful human being in the way he conducts his personal life.

I can describe Romney in three words: used car salesman. I understand that many used car salesmen might take offense at being equated to Mitt Romney and for that I apologize in advance.

That is interesting. I came to the exact opposite conclusion. As I said earlier, he seems remarkably respectable for a politician. One thing is for sure, though; Mitt Romney surely beats Newt Gingrich on the question of character.

Gingrich's tactics reflect the best approach at any given moment. For example, he tried to run a clean campaign on 2011, saw that it didn't work and adjusted accordingly.

Yes, and how he adjusted was to revert to his natural state - a big government, anti-business, Washington insider, pro-lobbyist, populist democrat. If I want to vote for a populist democrat, I'll vote for the one that now has four more years of executive experience than Newt Gingrich.

Same with the debates: there's nothing to suggest that he is a one trick pony. Obama on the other hand is not that great of a debater: last time he grabbed the nomination because Hillary bled most of her superdelegates.

Obama is a fine debater, and will run rings around Gingrich if he become the eventual nominee. Independents are not interested in a bomb thrower, which is all Gingrich has ever been.


You have brought up a lot of Romney's vulnerabilities. I agree that he is not a great candidate, or even a really good one. However, in each area you highlighted, Gingrich is markedly worse, and that is not even including the virtual airport trolley worth of additional baggage the man brings to the table.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Ack, I hope you're right. My gut tells me that its very easy to find an heir-apparent who is willing to continue supporting policies that make him/her richer. For every corrupt congressman there's plenty of people who would be willing to take his place and be just as corrupt for exactly the same ends.

It's a matter of winning elections not perpetuating the elite. The GOP can't continue buying the elitist guy's victory in the primary every cycle only to have him lose consistently. The base eventually will radically change directions and become more chaotic and uncontrollable. Which is exactly what we are seeing right now.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Kind of on that note, why do we still care so much about South Carolina? Is it not time to make this a bit more fair?

I'm not trying to say South Carolina is less important than the rest of the country, but they are certainly a lot more conservative and less educated than most voters (one of the worst school systems in the nation). That's not a good place for a campaign to be FORCED to make their stand--it means you have to get radical.

When was the last time we had a good national argument on trying to make the electoral system more fair?

The public is too afraid of change for that to happen. Everyone knows how the current system "works", so changing it is too scary.

Ask any of the UK residents in the backroom why First Past the Post was kept.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Not just that, but what would you change it to? It seems like every election year there are examples of dead people 'voting' or other shady election practices, so going towards direct democracy might be just as ineffective.

To be honest, the current structure is fine, the voting method is terrible. If we did preferential voting or anything besides FTTP, the system would be a lot more fair.

[CountArach]

Because GOP primary voters are completely removed from the general election electorate, more so than they have been since Goldwater. Romney is polling better than Obama in swing states among people who will vote in the general. I wonder how Gingrich fares. It is difficult to imagine voters in the critical suburbs of Ohio and Pennsylvania, much less Wisconsin or Indiana, pulling the lever for him.

Nevermind that the polling firm is a GOP one.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

To be honest, the current structure is fine, the voting method is terrible. If we did preferential voting or anything besides FTTP, the system would be a lot more fair.

No, the voting method is fine, it is completely fair, it does exactly what it says on the tin. Any other voting method would simply favour the most mediocre and inoffensive candidate, I suppose that's Rommey anyway, but it might have been Perry.

The problem is the way the primary system works, in two ways. Firstly; not all votes are by secret ballot, totally unacceptable, and secondly; states vote in sequence, so early states influence the voting patterns of later states even though those early states are smaller.

It's an anti-democratic and highly corruptable system.

[Lemur]

Nevermind that the polling firm is a GOP one.

Does not mean their methodology or results are wrong, though, especially when they publish the full questions and results here (PDF warning).

I don't automatically discard data that comes from partisan sources, especially a known science such as polling.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

No, the voting method is fine, it is completely fair, it does exactly what it says on the tin. Any other voting method would simply favour the most mediocre and inoffensive candidate, I suppose that's Rommey anyway, but it might have been Perry.

The problem is the way the primary system works, in two ways. Firstly; not all votes are by secret ballot, totally unacceptable, and secondly; states vote in sequence, so early states influence the voting patterns of later states even though those early states are smaller.

It's an anti-democratic and highly corruptable system.

It would take a tremendous amount of money to campaign in all 50 states in the primary. The state by state approach allows more time for the process.

I wouldn't mind seeing a switch to batches of 2 or three states at the start though. Small ones.

[a completely inoffensive name]

No, the voting method is fine, it is completely fair, it does exactly what it says on the tin. Any other voting method would simply favour the most mediocre and inoffensive candidate, I suppose that's Rommey anyway, but it might have been Perry.

Except it's not fair and we need a voting system that produces mediocre and inoffensive candidates that are more likely to compromise. In case you haven't noticed, America has a problem with polarized politicians not working together.

The problem is the way the primary system works, in two ways. Firstly; not all votes are by secret ballot, totally unacceptable, and secondly; states vote in sequence, so early states influence the voting patterns of later states even though those early states are smaller.

It's an anti-democratic and highly corruptable system.

The GOP changed their primary system about two years ago so now despite candidates "winning" these early states, GOP primaries have delegates split proportionally until march 24th (with the exception of florida), after which then it becomes winner take all.

So all a candidate really gets from winning an early state is momentum. Santorum and Romney got the same amount of delegates from Iowa and in the end, it's not about the votes but the delegates.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Also, just a follow up on South Carolina, it appears that 42% of evangelicals voted for Gingrich the man who cheated on his first wife with cancer and broke up with his second wife with MS on Mother's Day.

13% voted for Ron Paul married to his wife for 54 years. And I am sure Romney's percentage wasn't great either despite his loyalty to his marriage.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Except it's not fair and we need a voting system that produces mediocre and inoffensive candidates that are more likely to compromise. In case you haven't noticed, America has a problem with polarized politicians not working together.

First Past the Post elects the candidate prefered by the greatest number of electors, it is a simple and efficient system, which is one of the reasons the UK has virtually no electoral fraud, we actually only have fraud by postal ballot in this country, and even then rarely. Postal ballots are a novelty in this country, and one I would make illegal were I in charge of our electoral system.

If you want to know what those mediocre candidates look like, take a look at Ed Milliband, bland and inoffensive train wreck.

FPTP only seems unfair if you look at parties, looking at individual candidates and constituancies it is obviously the simplest and fairest system, which is why it was prefered by the Founding Fathers, who did not want party politics AT ALL.

[a completely inoffensive name]

First Past the Post elects the candidate prefered by the greatest number of electors, it is a simple and efficient system, which is one of the reasons the UK has virtually no electoral fraud, we actually only have fraud by postal ballot in this country, and even then rarely. Postal ballots are a novelty in this country, and one I would make illegal were I in charge of our electoral system.

If you want to know what those mediocre candidates look like, take a look at Ed Milliband, bland and inoffensive train wreck.

FPTP only seems unfair if you look at parties, looking at individual candidates and constituancies it is obviously the simplest and fairest system, which is why it was prefered by the Founding Fathers, who did not want party politics AT ALL.

A. From my understanding alternative methods of voting were not even known about at the time the United States was formed. Single transferable votes were not even proposed until the early 1800s or something. Mathematicians in the 1800s worked out all these alternative styles that we now know today.
B. The only person who cautioned against party politics was Washington. Everyone else was more than ready to fall into their respective camps (Jefferson and Hamilton). Constitution as designed by Madison is completely constructed around curbing party politics and mitigating its effects since according to Madison in Federalist #10, attempting to remove the causes of factions is akin to removing liberty itself.

Fact is party politics may not be what many of the Founders wanted, but as Madison states: "The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man,"
That is the reality of the situation, people no longer vote for individuals, they vote based on the letter D or R next to their name, with the exception of the presidency.

[PanzerJaeger]

Also, just a follow up on South Carolina, it appears that 42% of evangelicals voted for Gingrich the man who cheated on his first wife with cancer and broke up with his second wife with MS on Mother's Day.

13% voted for Ron Paul married to his wife for 54 years. And I am sure Romney's percentage wasn't great either despite his loyalty to his marriage.

Well you have to keep in mind that Mr. Romney - despite being married to the same woman for 40+ years, despite being a loving and devoted father, and despite being a man devoted to his faith and family - is also a Morman, or as the real Christians call them, the spawns of Satan.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It would take a tremendous amount of money to campaign in all 50 states in the primary. The state by state approach allows more time for the process.

I wouldn't mind seeing a switch to batches of 2 or three states at the start though. Small ones.

Why would it take more money? You campaign, then you vote. It would take less money, because the overall campaign time would probably be less and you simplify the process, by just balloting the registered members of the party and doing away with state-by-state registration of the ballot. Given the power the modern Federal Government wields this state-by-state approach is unacceptable, it is inherently a corrupt process because those votes cast later in the campaign are worth less. Consider, both Huntsman and Perry dropped out on the strenght of TWO contests, of which only one was an actual ballot, and the other a series of town meetings. If Rommey had won in South Carolina he would have all but one, all it would take would be for Rommey to win one more state, Gringich one and Santorum one, then Rommey would be home after six states, leaving 44 states disenfranchised.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Why would it take more money? You campaign, then you vote. It would take less money, because the overall campaign time would probably be less and you simplify the process, by just balloting the registered members of the party and doing away with state-by-state registration of the ballot. Given the power the modern Federal Government wields this state-by-state approach is unacceptable, it is inherently a corrupt process because those votes cast later in the campaign are worth less. Consider, both Huntsman and Perry dropped out on the strenght of TWO contests, of which only one was an actual ballot, and the other a series of town meetings. If Rommey had won in South Carolina he would have all but one, all it would take would be for Rommey to win one more state, Gringich one and Santorum one, then Rommey would be home after six states, leaving 44 states disenfranchised.

The primary system is not meant to be democratic. It is meant to gauge general election competitiveness - testing the positives and negatives of a candidates in various forums, simulating variables that you will meet and in the general election.If republicans wanted, they could just pick the nominee and send him to the general, like people are talking about happening at the delegation. The parties are private affairs, only the general is meant to adhere to our Republic's democracy as demanded in the Constitution.

[CountArach]

Does not mean their methodology or results are wrong, though, especially when they publish the full questions and results here (PDF warning).

I don't automatically discard data that comes from partisan sources, especially a known science such as polling.

They aren't at all open about the various break-downs that they use for society. It is also at odds with existing polling in Ohio for instance. Further, question order s important in this and serves to make it entirely an election about Obama. For instance, note the way that the first question is about Favourability, then Job Approval and then about the election. With low approval ratings it is no surprise that you can skew a result slightly like this. Further, if you need any proof that they are picking and choosing their samples carefully, observe that his approval ratings are 2-4 points below the national average and his disapproval is at least 4 points above the national average.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Interesting view points around the Democratic table about Ron Paul.

[PanzerJaeger]

They aren't at all open about the various break-downs that they use for society. It is also at odds with existing polling in Ohio for instance.

And more than half of that average is comprised of results from a Democratic polling operation.

My point in posting the poll was not to make a definitive statement about Mr. Romney's chances against Mr. Obama, but to draw a contrast between the electability of Mr. Romney versus Mr. Gingrich. Whether the numbers are skewed a few points towards Mr. Romney or not, I seriously doubt similar numbers could be found for Mr. Gingrich.

Thus, Mr. Gingrich represents a Christine O'Donnell moment for the GOP. If he is nominated, the movement conservatives will relish in his trash talk and bomb throwing against the 'food stamp' president all the way to defeat, and then blame the establishment.

I still contend that that there is a significant group of movement conservatives and thought leaders - Erick Erickson, Rush & the talk radio crew, certain elements of the Fox News channel - that want Obama to stay right where he is for economic reasons. They have figured out that people feel more comfortable when 'their guy' is in office and tend to tune out of politics, which is not good for site views or ratings. They are pushing the Bachmanns, Cains, and Gingriches - the unelectable candidates - almost to the exclusion of anyone with a chance to defeat the incumbent.


***

Ann Coulter actually... surprisingly... fantastically... makes a whole lot of sense.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A. From my understanding alternative methods of voting were not even known about at the time the United States was formed. Single transferable votes were not even proposed until the early 1800s or something. Mathematicians in the 1800s worked out all these alternative styles that we now know today.
B. The only person who cautioned against party politics was Washington. Everyone else was more than ready to fall into their respective camps (Jefferson and Hamilton). Constitution as designed by Madison is completely constructed around curbing party politics and mitigating its effects since according to Madison in Federalist #10, attempting to remove the causes of factions is akin to removing liberty itself.

Fact is party politics may not be what many of the Founders wanted, but as Madison states: "The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man,"
That is the reality of the situation, people no longer vote for individuals, they vote based on the letter D or R next to their name, with the exception of the presidency.

As originally designed your Constitution makes the runner up for President Vice President, the system has become so corrupted it no longer even resembles the ideas of your founders.

As to voting, the maxim is, "One man, one vote", not "One man, one vote - subject to a complex mathematical formula which ranks candidates in preference, first to last, reasigning the votes of the lowest voted candidate until one has achieved 50% of the votes, according to first, second and third preference." for a reason.

Here's the Reason:

I vote Rommey because he's the only Candidate who will Obama and the onle one with any hope of dragging the US out of the coming slump, I don't do second preference votes because I'd rather have Obama than another of the other R candidates.

You vote Ron Paul, then Rommey, then Gringitch.

So I voted once, and you voted three times, so it's possible for my first vote to be ignored, as well as your first and second, but your third proppels Gringitch to the Nomination.

That is not a fair system. If you want preferencial voting, fine, but you do it via runoff, everybody votes again, and again, you don't do it on a single ballot.

[Lemur]

Ramussen, which is the best outfit for polling the Repub base, gave Romney a 22-point national lead less than two weeks ago. Now they give Gingrich a 9-point lead. That's a 31-point swing in twelve days. Kinda stunning. I don't remember seeing that kind of swing in such a short time span ... ever. Not without, say, someone dying, or a politician being found with a wide stance in an airport bathroom.

I'm at a loss to explain it.