Is it all over for Romney?

[morgieb]

People were saying the same thing about Perry. Gingrich has too many skeletons in the closet to win the nomination, and who else do they have?

[FloridaRepublican]

So because Romney's lead has declined a bit, he now has no shot? What sense does that make? He's not in Bachmann territory, folks. It's safe to assume that he still has a very good, if not the best, shot at winning the nomination.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

When it comes down to it, roughly 70% of the party does not want Romney.

Period.

Pawlenty, Bachmann, Perry, Cain all had their time in the sun. Why? Because conservative Tea Partiers do not trust Romney.

True, Republicans want to win, but they want to win with their candidate. Not the establishment's. They saw how John McCain, the ideal establishment, moderate candidate who used his fiery temper more against Republicans than he did Democrats, lost utterly to Obama. They don't want the same thing to happen again.

Don't underestimate the possible negative effects of a Romney ticket. Many conservatives will simply stay at home (I will not). The Obama campaign will hammer home that Romneycare WAS the model for Obamacare. They will also hammer home Romney's numerous flip-flops when he ran for various offices. A Ron Paul candidacy might appeal to many Tea Partiers.

And you just proved why the GOP is screwed.  They want their "own" candidate, but oops, mainstream moderate America isn't voting for that.  McCain also lost badly because of the economy.  The 2008 race was tight until Lehman went under.  The GOP is beyond screwed.  By the way, DeMint on any ticket would be a DISASTER.  He's known outside of Dixie to be one of the most ignorant Senators we have.

Agreed.

Frankly, I'm counting on the GOP to lose this election by nominating a right wing bomb thrower, because that is the only way the party will do soul searching in the wake of the election. A McCain loss empowered and emboldened the radicals in the party and now we're stuck with the f ucking mess you see today. Perhaps if Gingrich can lead the party to a massive rout, sanity will finally prevail.

Or is that being too optimistic? The 2016 bench looks great for the GOP anyhow.

You are underestimating the sheer stubbornness of the Tea Party. They will say (if Newt is the nominee and regardless of whether he wins or loses) that Newt Gingrich is a moderate and/or an establishment scumbag etc.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Not necessarily. He could possibly survive depending on how the dice roll. As I said from way the hell back, there are exactly three ways this can go: A Romney win, a Paul win, or a Gingrich win. Seeing as how Romney is starting to flail around like an old flavour of the month, I'd adjust the odds from 75 Romney, 15 Paul, 10 Gingrich to 30 Romney, 35 Gingrich, 35 Paul.

Romney could win if he won Iowa somehow (since that's going to be the "home base" for whoever is his biggest opponent) as it would be unlikely to lose stronghold New Hampshire afterwards without a clear opponent. More likely, he could win if Paul won Iowa but Gingrich performed well enough in second to stick around, allowing the anti-Romney voters to split up the remaining states (Paul would do better in the west, midwest, and northeast while Gingrich would do better in the south and southwest) and letting Romney win enough to slide ahead (Sorta like how McCain performed when Huckabee and Romney kept each other far down enough for McCain to win states either would have won alone). The opposite (Gingrich wins Iowa but Paul comes in strong second) is possible too.

Paul could win easily if he won Iowa and then exploited the weakening of Romney to win New Hampshire too. With those two wins, he'd basically be guaranteed the nomination from sheer momentum and no serious opposition (Gingrich discredited in Iowa, Romney discredited in New Hampshire). However, he could also win if he won strongly in Iowa, performed with a strong second in New Hampshire, did well in South Carolina and Florida (He might even win SC if he was lucky, but probably not) and then won Nevada. From there, he benefits strongly from the fact that a large portion of the earlier states are either caucus states, states he has a strong chance of winning regardless of timing (North Dakota, etc), or both. Assuming Gingrich doesn't get enough support to win any more than maybe one of those early states (in which case we get Romney Victory #2), Paul would sweep Romney out.

Gingrich could win if he won Iowa by a large enough margin to keep Paul to "gadfly" status. Ideally, it would go Gingrich - irrelevant conservative (Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, etc) - Romney - Paul. From there, Paul's non-rock solid supporters (The maybe 4-10% he has been getting in addition to his usual 6-12% recently) would go to Gingrich and it would be Gingrich alone vs Romney, a fight Gingrich would win with ease. Mind, this assumes the skeletons in his closet haven't already come out and his credibility hasn't been destroyed (entirely possible, which is why I didn't put his odds higher).

[TomC]

No, he still has a good chance of being the nominee. Right now most people being polled are simply choosing the name they've been hearing in the news more. Most people do not understand the dynamics of the electoral process like we do here. We expect certain folks to win certain things (ie Romney in NH). The public will be impacted when he does. They are not yet paying attention or really that committed.

 He has way more endorsements than Gingrich, way more money, way more organization. Either could certainly make gaffes, but unless there is a huge surge in endorsements for Newt, Romney will have more serious politicians out speaking on his behalf, much more money to run ads. Right now some Democrats are attempting to weaken Romney to help Gingrich. If the DNC continues it's attacks on Romney, that may backfire.

The Tea Partiers are certainly the loudest GOP primary voters, but it remains to be seen that they control the GOP over establishment types. We could label Newt an establishment type but it has yet to be seen that the establishment is embracing him in the way that a good number have come to Romney. Compare their lists of endorsements on their wikipedia campaign pages.

Now, not saying Newt can't win- just that Romney's definitely not over. We could have said (and did) that Newt, despite high name recognition and having held a pretty high office (qualified), was done when he wasn't catching on all summer and early fall. Clearly he has caught back on, just as Romney can.

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

So because Romney's lead has declined a bit, he now has no shot? What sense does that make? He's not in Bachmann territory, folks. It's safe to assume that he still has a very good, if not the best, shot at winning the nomination.

his lead has declined so much, it's gone

[Badger]

Absolutely not.  That being said, he MUST win NH if you ask me.  If he loses NH, I think his campaign will lose steam quickly.  That's "his" state and lynchpin.

This, and what Sam Spade said. The timing is getting tight, though. Short of a complete Bachmann/Perry/Cain level of meltdown by Gingrich, Romney may be hoping for even enough partial degeneration of Newt's support to pump up Ron Paul's chances, especially in Iowa. Newt placing a close second in Iowa behind Paul would hurt Gingrich's campaign more than Mitt placing a strong third would hurt his own campaign. The best case scenario would be Paul gains enough momentum from IA to edge Gingrich out for 2nd in NH, but that's mere gravy compared to the advantage gained from Gingrich losing IA. If that happens, that takes quite a bit of oxygen and momentum from the Gingrich campaign, and makes SC practically a must win for him. And even then it diverts time and resources from FL, potentially making that a competitive state (whereas current polls show Romney getting blown out there).

We've talked a lot about the prospect of Gingrich following the Bachmann, Perry and Cain path of utterly imploding. That's not entirely impossible given what a baggage-ladden loose cannon Gingrich is, but my point is Paul's numbers in NH and (especially) IA are close enough that even a partial slump by Newt could pay big dividends to Romney--so long as a generous portion of whatever support Newt bleeds ultimately finds its way to Paul.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Absolutely not.  That being said, he MUST win NH if you ask me.  If he loses NH, I think his campaign will lose steam quickly.  That's "his" state and lynchpin.

This, and what Sam Spade said. The timing is getting tight, though. Short of a complete Bachmann/Perry/Cain level of meltdown by Gingrich, Romney may be hoping for even enough partial degeneration of Newt's support to pump up Ron Paul's chances, especially in Iowa. Newt placing a close second in Iowa behind Paul would hurt Gingrich's campaign more than Mitt placing a strong third would hurt his own campaign. The best case scenario would be Paul gains enough momentum from IA to edge Gingrich out for 2nd in NH, but that's mere gravy compared to the advantage gained from Gingrich losing IA. If that happens, that takes quite a bit of oxygen and momentum from the Gingrich campaign, and makes SC practically a must win for him. And even then it diverts time and resources from FL, potentially making that a competitive state (whereas current polls show Romney getting blown out there).

We've talked a lot about the prospect of Gingrich following the Bachmann, Perry and Cain path of utterly imploding. That's not entirely impossible given what a baggage-ladden loose cannon Gingrich is, but my point is Paul's numbers in NH and (especially) IA are close enough that even a partial slump by Newt could pay big dividends to Romney--so long as a generous portion of whatever support Newt bleeds ultimately finds its way to Paul.

Of course, Paul has a better chance of getting non-Republican or moderate support than Gingrich, so if Paul did that much better than Gingrich in Iowa and New Hampshire it would just be replacing one problem with another on Romney's part.