Time to turn to Newt?

[Bull Moose Base]

I see jmfcst is on board. Sorry for the Cain Train pun. Anyway, back to the point: is it time to turn to Newt? Perry decided to abandon his campaign tonight and Cain seems a little preoccupied these days. While I'd love to see Santorum step into the role of the "Anti Romney," Newt seems far better positioned to do so.

I can't believe it's happening but I might just have to support the guy.

This makes a lot more sense to me now than it did 2 months before Iowa.  There's one week until South Carolina.  Romney winning it escalates his momentum to the nomination.  A slew of new polls show Newt moving into a much stronger position than Santorum to stop Romney from sweeping the first 5 contests.  Maybe Santorum should bow out ahead of South Carolina and accept the country's thanks for being the guy who finally proved the Iowa caucus irrelevant.

EDIT: Alternatively, Santorum could unleash attacks on Newt hoping to reverse their SC poll standings with a week to go, but it comes with the obvious risk of helping Romney break away.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I see jmfcst is on board. Sorry for the Cain Train pun. Anyway, back to the point: is it time to turn to Newt? Perry decided to abandon his campaign tonight and Cain seems a little preoccupied these days. While I'd love to see Santorum step into the role of the "Anti Romney," Newt seems far better positioned to do so.

I can't believe it's happening but I might just have to support the guy.

This makes a lot more sense to me now than it did 2 months before Iowa.  There's one week until South Carolina.  Romney winning it escalates his momentum to the nomination.  A slew of new polls show Newt moving into a much stronger position than Santorum to stop Romney from sweeping the first 5 contests.

 

I think the GOP electorate is about to boil over with anger.  Anger about potentially facing a Romney nomination.  Anger with the cowardly way the couple of dozen GOP big names stayed out of the contest.  Anger at the establishment for endorsing a candidate who is so vague, it threatens the very purpose of having a political party.

[Eraserhead]

I see jmfcst is on board. Sorry for the Cain Train pun. Anyway, back to the point: is it time to turn to Newt? Perry decided to abandon his campaign tonight and Cain seems a little preoccupied these days. While I'd love to see Santorum step into the role of the "Anti Romney," Newt seems far better positioned to do so.

I can't believe it's happening but I might just have to support the guy.

This makes a lot more sense to me now than it did 2 months before Iowa.  There's one week until South Carolina.  Romney winning it escalates his momentum to the nomination.  A slew of new polls show Newt moving into a much stronger position than Santorum to stop Romney from sweeping the first 5 contests.

 

I think the GOP electorate is about to boil over with anger.  Anger about potentially facing a Romney nomination.  Anger with the cowardly way the couple of dozen GOP big names stayed out of the contest.  Anger at the establishment for endorsing a candidate who is so vague, it threatens the very purpose of having a political party.

They could, you know, just stop voting for him in these contests. That would help.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

They could, you know, just stop voting for him in these contests. That would help.

SC decides the GOP nomination, not IA or NH.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

They could, you know, just stop voting for him in these contests. That would help.

SC decides the GOP nomination, not IA or NH.

How did McCain do in SC?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

SC decides the GOP nomination, not IA or NH.

How did McCain do in SC?

IIRC, McCain lost in SC to Bush in 2000, and then McCain won SC in 2008.

[President von Cat]

The problem is, the base has too many dogs in the fight. Newt, Perry and Santorum are splitting the conservative vote and letting Mitt win by default. What would have happened if Bachmann, Gingrich, or Perry hadn't even been in Iowa at all? There's no way Romney would have won.

It looks as if the same thing is about to happen all over again in SC.

Across this forum, you and Keystone Phil have traded barbs over which candidate should be the conservative standard bearer, when you and your peers should have already unified behind somebody. You hate the fact that some better conservative had months to get in the damn race but didn't, when you guys had months to get your sh*t together and just choose someone.

Don't blame the establishment, blame yourselves.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The problem is, the base has too many dogs in the fight. Newt, Perry and Santorum are splitting the conservative vote and letting Mitt win by default. What would have happened if Bachmann, Gingrich, or Perry hadn't even been in Iowa at all? There's no way Romney would have won.

It looks as if the same thing is about to happen all over again in SC.

Across this forum, you and Keystone Phil have traded barbs over which candidate should be the conservative standard bearer, when you and your peers should have already unified behind somebody. You hate the fact that some better conservative had months to get in the damn race but didn't, when you guys had months to get your sh*t together and just choose someone.

Don't blame the establishment, blame yourselves.

 

I'd run myself if I had the resume.  the GOP establishment are such cowards, and Paul Ryan is a puss.  he is, after all, whom the GOP wanted all along for a nominee.

[CatoMinor]

They could, you know, just stop voting for him in these contests. That would help.

SC decides the GOP nomination, not IA or NH.

Not exactly true. SC went for Reagan in 76. Technically New York has been more accurate than SC, picking the winner since 1972. I am sure there are other states as well that go back further than 1980, the year SC began its streak.

 

[Mr. Morden]

They could, you know, just stop voting for him in these contests. That would help.

SC decides the GOP nomination, not IA or NH.

Not exactly true. SC went for Reagan in 76. Technically New York has been more accurate than SC, picking the winner since 1972. I am sure there are other states as well that go back further than 1980, the year SC began its streak.

 

I think Florida also has a streak of picking the winner going back to 1976.  In any case, correlation is not causation.  South Carolina always goes for the guys who's already the national frontrunner at the time of the primary, and the GOP always nominates the early frontrunner.  Doesn't necessarily mean that the one causes the other.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Too late for an Anti-Romney.

That's what you get when you can't choose one strong candidate in time.

SC decides the GOP nomination, not IA or NH.

Not exactly true. SC went for Reagan in 76.

Wrong. Before 1980, there were SC Republican conventions, not primaries. And since primary replaced convention, no one won GOP nomination without winning SC primary.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

That's what you get when you can't choose one strong candidate in time.

we didnt have one strong candidate to choose from.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

They could, you know, just stop voting for him in these contests. That would help.

SC decides the GOP nomination, not IA or NH.

Does not follow. South Carolina isn't a magical predictor of who'll win the nomination, it just comes after a lot of the tertiary candidates are gone and provides momentum to the (likely) victor. Even then, I can't recall an instance where a candidate won NH and IA but lost the nomination in either party.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

They could, you know, just stop voting for him in these contests. That would help.

SC decides the GOP nomination, not IA or NH.

Does not follow. South Carolina isn't a magical predictor of who'll win the nomination, it just comes after a lot of the tertiary candidates are gone and provides momentum to the (likely) victor. Even then, I can't recall an instance where a candidate won NH and IA but lost the nomination in either party.

  No GOP candidate has ever won both IA and NH...but, no GOP nominee has ever lost SC primary.  SC is much more reflective of the national GOP party than IA or NH.

And I agree that if Mitt wins SC, it's over.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I, for one, think the GOP should let Romney "have his turn" now.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

They could, you know, just stop voting for him in these contests. That would help.

SC decides the GOP nomination, not IA or NH.

Does not follow. South Carolina isn't a magical predictor of who'll win the nomination, it just comes after a lot of the tertiary candidates are gone and provides momentum to the (likely) victor. Even then, I can't recall an instance where a candidate won NH and IA but lost the nomination in either party.

  No GOP candidate has ever won both IA and NH...but, no GOP nominee has ever lost SC primary.  SC is much more reflective of the national GOP party than IA or NH.

And I agree that if Mitt wins SC, it's over.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_1976

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

No GOP candidate has ever won both IA and NH...but, no GOP nominee has ever lost SC primary.  SC is much more reflective of the national GOP party than IA or NH.

And I agree that if Mitt wins SC, it's over.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_1976

sorry, not catching your point.

[tpfkaw]

No GOP candidate has ever won both IA and NH...but, no GOP nominee has ever lost SC primary.  SC is much more reflective of the national GOP party than IA or NH.

And I agree that if Mitt wins SC, it's over.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_1976

sorry, not catching your point.

Ford won both IA and NH, and lost SC.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Ford won both IA and NH, and lost SC.

not in the current format

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Ford won both IA and NH, and lost SC.

not in the current format

Well, things can change.

For example, Romney has already won New Hampshire and (arguably) Iowa. Thus, according to you, he is an impossibility and thus the results of South Carolina will result in something strange and unknowable.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

For example, Romney has already won New Hampshire and (arguably) Iowa. Thus, according to you, he is an impossibility and thus the results of South Carolina will result in something strange and unknowable.

never said it was an impossibility, just that SC primary is a fare better bellwether than either IA or NH, simply because SC is far more representative of the overall GOP.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

For example, Romney has already won New Hampshire and (arguably) Iowa. Thus, according to you, he is an impossibility and thus the results of South Carolina will result in something strange and unknowable.

never said it was an impossibility, just that SC primary is a fare better bellwether than either IA or NH, simply because SC is far more representative of the overall GOP.

Southern Republicans are more representative of the party than the evangelicals, moderates, independents AND fiscal cons?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

For example, Romney has already won New Hampshire and (arguably) Iowa. Thus, according to you, he is an impossibility and thus the results of South Carolina will result in something strange and unknowable.

never said it was an impossibility, just that SC primary is a fare better bellwether than either IA or NH, simply because SC is far more representative of the overall GOP.

Southern Republicans are more representative of the party than the evangelicals, moderates, independents AND fiscal cons?

South Carolina's GOP is a mixture of the main strands of the national GOP.  We've got evangelicals in the upstate, fiscal conservatives in the midlands, a smattering of libertarians and businesspeople in the low country, with an overlay of military hawks pretty much everywhere.  We aren't Mississippi thank goodness.