NH Union Leader endorses Newt

[Bull Moose Base]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/26/1040099/-NH-Union-Leader-will-endorse-Perry?via=siderecent

Their McCain endorsement vaulted him over Romney in 2008.  But this time, Romney's probably relieved they're not going to endorse Gingrich, which would have been a problem for him.

[Bull Moose Base]

Maybe it'll help him beat Newt in NH or even get 2nd place and give him the edge for South Carolina but I'm skeptical 2nd in NH matters and still think no one should contest it.

[Bull Moose Base]

This could be a strategic move to help divide the conservatives enough to ensure a Romney victory. Romney is probably close to his ceiling anyways, so a Perry endorsement could bring some undecideds to him that would otherwise go with Gingrich.

A strategic move by whom?

[Bull Moose Base]

This could be a strategic move to help divide the conservatives enough to ensure a Romney victory. Romney is probably close to his ceiling anyways, so a Perry endorsement could bring some undecideds to him that would otherwise go with Gingrich.

A strategic move by whom?

The NH Union Leader.

Why wouldn't they just endorse Romney?

[Bull Moose Base]

Sorry dudes.  Got headfaked. A nightmare for Mitt.

[Bull Moose Base]

Yeah, on some level, I just can't shake my skepticism of all this.  Throughout the summer and fall, the GOP has been casting about for the "anti-Romney."  First it was Bachman, then Perry, then Cain; one by one they fell from grace as it was discovered why each were bad candidates.  This will also happen to Gingrich.  More than anything, the GOP wants to take back the White House, not just posture, and the only candidate who has consistently polled even with Obama has been Mitt, and because Mitt has done his groundwork in the last four years, he is drawing the lion's share of establishment support and money.  And, despite all the criticism of Romney's flip-flopping, he has managed to position himself in a very interesting way, taking centrist stances on lots of issues in prep for the general, but harder lines on tax reform and immigration for the nomination, and on the latter issue a harder line than some of his supposedly more conservative rivals.  Gingrich has been out of power for more than a decade, has his own flip-flop issues, has articulated positions lately that are likely to alienate the conservatives he has to court, and is incredibly undisciplined and gaffe-prone.  He is just all-around a much spookier, and more hostile, general election candidate than Romney is.  One paper's endorsement doesn't change any of that.  It's the sudden, flash in the pan, support for Gingrich that strikes me as an inch deep, not Romney's.   I'm sure my own biases are showing in this assessment, of course, so, JMO.  But if I were on the Obama campaign staff, I'd rest a lot easier with a Gingrich nomination than with a Romney nomination, for lots and lots of reasons.

A slew of recent polls specifically show that electability is a weaker concern for primary voters than issues and also consistently show no candidate has firm support, including Romney in NH.  Voters are still making up their minds.  I also see Romney as sweating the base's hostility to him and still trying to avoid centrist positions at this point (e.g. Ohio labor issue, Mississippi personhood).  Newt, on the other hand, with more credibility to burn, has tacked to the middle more than Romney but then comes under fire and scurries to his right (e.g. Paul Ryan plan, immigration).  And one more quibble: Bachmann lost support because of Perry's entry unlike Perry and Cain, who imploded because of their own flaws.  So I think she's still in the game, particularly in Iowa, but needs to damage Newt to make room for herself.  If Romney's lucky, she'll do so just enough for him to run the table.