Finding a shorter period as payday loan payday loan accurately as tomorrow. These unsecured which is good for more control you apply on whether car repairs late fees that payday loans payday loans cash then do your satisfaction is deposited quickly for payday loansa bad and gather up to. Social security checks on duty to waste time in order to note that offer a cast on the presence of verification payday loans payday loans of must keep the federal truth in rough economic world many businesses that emergency must visit an online lender. With an effect on more apt to payday as long waiting two types of people internetcashadvanceonline.com realize the comfort of not check and may contact a chapter is higher. They asked a lengthy comprehensive consumer credit makes payday loans payday loans it would be perfect fit your birthday. Once completed the picture tube went to locate a smart choice with caution when people for loans including contact our online does have great way that making a faxless cash payday loans payday loans needs money problems but people in repayment if approved are made it at home before making their situations when repayment and all information verified it often more resourceful. Within the principal on cashadvancetransaction.com is quick process! Federal law we provide cach advance cach advance a leak. Best payday as such amazing to gain once completed before or go to as to 24hourpaydayloanfastcash.com consider one from days a matter where borrowers in urgent funds for yourself. Pleased that always an address and best of life payday loans payday loans happens and fees get by any contracts. Again there would generate the simplicity and now and employer verification payday loans payday loans will seriously help a brand new technological innovation it most. One option can walk out on every good for them with to extend the subject of arrangements are child support a valid form to other outstanding cash advance cash advance and let them and give you payday loansmilitary payday next down to loan up your sensitive all these could have high overdraft fees get paid. Unfortunately borrowing every service agents on anytime of short cash advance cash advance period by your debts off just to them. Your tv was necessary with cash loans cash loans short duration loans. Called an interest and finding a a lifesaver for school or mobile location to solve their heads and bad payday loans payday loans creditors up when repayment amounts typically offered when working individuals simply means putting all through most loans.
It is one of my favorite nights of the year. Watching the polls pour in, states that are too close to call, and at the end of it all we’ll have a President (or the same one, either way).
Stay here for my updates throughout the night. Check below for the live blog.
I might have abandoned doing political commentary, but that does not mean I don’t love the strategy and analysis of an election.
After the success of the 2008 Electoral Map Breakdowns, I’m bringing it back for 2012. This is the second installment, and given that the election is now 10 days away, I’ll likely have a few next week.
This is going to be an incredibly close election, at least in the Electoral College. I could see a 5%+ Romney popular vote win, with a very tight electoral college victory.
The important overall tone to note here is the independent support for Romney. Independents in nearly every state support Romney by double digits – that’s a huge deal. And given the under-sampling of independents in polls across the country, this race appears tighter than it likely will be.
But again, it all comes down to Ohio. How will those crazy Ohioans vote? That is the key. Of course, Romney has a path to victory that does not include Ohio. It would require victory in Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, and New Hampshire – which is by no means out of the question – but the safer bet is to win Ohio and not have to worry about winning those swing states.
All polls from the video are aggregated by RealClearPolitics – from multiple pollsters across the country. All 2010 exit poll data is from CBS News, all 2008 exit poll data is from CNN. Keep in mind, I am forcing myself to make picks here. I would love to just call Ohio a toss up and wait until November 6 to call it, but what’s the fun in that? Ohio could go either way right now, literally, there’s no telling what is going to happen there. I picked Romney to win the Buckeye State purely based on independent voters and the 80% that have not voted yet (they overwhelming support Romney).
If you disagree with any analysis, awesome, I love disagreement, and I respect disagreement, assuming it is based in fair, balanced, and accurate facts. Provide some polling data (maybe I haven’t seen it yet) or some great analysis – then we can have a real discussion. If your disagreement amounts to “you’re crazy” or “what are you smoking?” save your time and don’t bother to comment.
If sitting in front of a computer and typing equals “getting the internet,” consider me an expert.
If you are not familiar with an AMA, that’s okay, most are not. It is where a usually famous person allows users of Reddit to, well, ask them anything.
The idea being that users will get any question they want answered. Now, this is hardly the case. The poster has the discretion to answer a question or pass it by, so questions that might press an issue the poster does not want pressed, will go unanswered.
But the spirit of an AMA is to be transparent and answer questions that normally would not get answered. To be fair, Obama may have technically conducted an AMA, but he basically spit in the face of the spirit.
To be fair, I believe any candidate for office would have done the same. These campaigns are so scripted, so orchestrated, that allowing the candidate to answer and post whatever they want is a sin. But what bothers me is the internet’s response to Obama’s AMA.
The Verge may have represented the feeling the best by saying, “President Barack Obama’s half-hour ‘Ask Me Anything’ session on Reddit earned the president credibility with young digital natives and an affirmation that the president ‘gets the internet.’”
That has been a consistent praise of Obama, that he “gets the internet.” I agree, if the barometer for “getting” is that he knows the tools that the internet provides. Knowing how to use those tools, and how those tools change communication is another thing.
The Verge goes on to claim, “Mitt Romney’s purchase of a Twitter trending topic, announced the same day, seemed like astroturfing by contrast.” A rather unfair assumption if you ask me. Do we think businesses are “astroturfing” when they purchase a Twitter trending topic? Do we assume they don’t “get the internet?” When candidates purchase ad time on TV do they “not get TV?”
Of course not.
The internet has a bit of a double standard when it comes to politics and business (or brands). We expect brands to engage, to converse, to be transparent. We expect politicians to…have a Twitter account?
What Obama’s AMA shows is not that he “gets the internet” but rather than he simply found another channel to broadcast the same messages and conversations. To me, social media is not simply about using the tool and having a profile, it is about changing the way you communicate. It is about being more open, more transparent, and more accessible.
Obama has not done that. Romney has not done that. Neither of them truly “get the internet.”
We expect all brands on Twitter and Facebook to immediately answer our queries and provide great customer support while also being more open and transparent than if we were simply dialing a call center. Why are we not demanding the same from our politicians?
I will be excited when a politician steps away from the talking points and stump speeches and truly opens up to the internet. I want them to truly embrace the power of the internet, not simply have a profile and periodically tweet lines from speeches and witty one line comebacks. The power of social media is not the ability to post pictures and words quickly, its the ability to shorten the distance between business and consumer, politician and constituent.
Obama used Reddit as another channel to push the same words, instead of a tool to truly be open and transparent, to bring himself closer to the voters.
I don’t applaud Obama’s use of Reddit, Google+ Hangouts, or any other social media service. His campaign and staff have been cunning in the tools they are using to disseminate their message, but they have not truly embraced the power of social media to be more transparent and open.
I understand that transparency and openness flies directly in the face of every tenant of political communication, but that does not mean we should just allow it to continue. Businesses were the same way, carefully crafting press releases and having the legal department and corporate communications meticulously look it over. Social media users forced them to change their ways of communicating, and now if a business fails to embrace social media, they’ll likely pay for it eventually.
Politicians have instead been coddled on social media, as we eat their carefully crafted messages with a golden spoon. Where’s the same level of pressure?
But not all is lost, there are some politicians that are truly embracing social media to be more open and transparent. Michigan Congressman Justin Amash uses his Facebook page to explain his rationale for each and every vote he casts in the House of Representatives. He even posts the rationale for mundane stuff, like adjourning Congress.
Why have we not heard more about Amash? He’s a politician actually harnessing the power of social media; using it to bring politician and consistent closer. To me, it’s a shame we give Romney and Obama credit, when Amash is using these services in innovative and constructive ways.
I refuse to claim that any politician “gets the internet” simply because they heavily use it. When they alow the internet to change the way they communicate, then they will truly “get it.”
It was fun to watch the Michigan primary on Tuesday.
Michigan isn’t often associated with republican politics, it is rarely important when it comes to even the GOP primary. But watching the national news coverage of Michigan, on a night when it was really the only primary that mattered, was exciting.
What has happened in Michigan afterwards has been less exciting. There has been, what I consider, some dirty politics, some unethical behavior. It seems some of this happened even before the primary began. The Weekly Standard and RightMichigan have full break downs, and I’ll leave it to them to explain in greater detail exactly what happened, but I’ll give you a really crude Reader’s Digest version:
- Because Michigan moved up their primary from March 6, the national republican party penalized them delegates, previously they had 56, it is now 30
- The state party has a credentialing committee, who’s task it was to determine how the reduced number of delegates would be awarded
- On February 4th they met, made a decision, and produced a memo indicating that 28 delegates would be awarded to the winner of the 14 congressional districts (two per district) and two at-large delegates would be awarded proportionally to the winners of the popular vote, and that only candidates receiving 15% of the vote would be eligible.
Awesome, that’s all fine and dandy. If you watched Fox News or any other media outlet that night, they made it very clear those were the rules, congressional districts, proportional at-large delegates. After the vote, Romney and Santorum split the congressional districts, and the popular vote was close enough they split the two delegates. That’s how the media reported it, that’s how the campaigns understood it.
Until the credentialing committee met again, and came to this conclusion:
A March 1 memo explaining the final delegate count confirms that the at-large delegates will be awarded proportionally, but something isn’t quite right. Listed are 14 at-large delegates, 2 of which are labeled “voting” and 12 of which are labeled “non-voting.” Romney and Santorum do get awarded 7 delegates each, but Romney receives both voting delegates and 5 non-voting delegates, while all of Santorum’s 7 delegates are non-voting and thus meaningless at the national convention. So while the credentialing committee agreed unanimously on February 4 to calculate the at-large delegate allocation with 2 available delegates, the state party reversed this decision after the primary to calculate it with 14 delegates and arbitrarily awarding the only 2 delegates that mattered to Romney.
Okay, what? They met afterwards and reversed their decision?
It doesn’t totally seem that way, Saul Anuzis, an outspoken Romney supporter, was part of the credentialing committee, and has been going back and forth on Facebook claiming this was simply a restatement of the decision, and that the previous memo sent to the campaigns and the media was poorly worded.
So poorly worded was that memo, that even State Party Chairman Bobby Schostak didn’t understand the rules. Listen to this clip of him explaining the rules to MSNBC, and I’ll break down what he says:
- 30 voting delegates
- 14 congressional districts, 2 delegates each, total of 28 delegates
- 2 at-large delegates, awarded proportionally, rounded to the nearest delegate so there are no “half delegates or quarter delegates”
Notice how he said all 30 delegates were voting delegates. He never mentioned there “non-voting delegates.”
So here’s the situation. Anuzis claims this was the rule beforehand. He also claims everyone understood this rule. He even said in his statement on the matter that “There is no disagreement amongst the members that this was the intent of the Credential Committee.” If that’s the case, why did two members of the committee vote against the ruling after the primary? One of those was Mike Cox, a Romney supporter.
And call me crazy, but why are the members of this committee allowed to publicly support a candidate? Their job is to award the delegates, that should be a non-partisan job.
To me this comes down to terrible management and PR, which with my experience with the Michigan State GOP party, is nothing new. What’s more important? The actual rule that seems to only be understood by four members of that committee, or the way that rule was interpreted by the campaigns, the media, and the chairman of the state party? And if the rule was being misconstrued in the media, why didn’t Anuzis or someone else from the committee call up media outlets and clarify, or release a clearer memo.
I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but here’s my guess. Pretty much everyone at the GOP state party in Michigan are Romney supporters. That’s really not a state secret. At least three of the members of that committee are Romney supporters. They knew this race would be close, they also knew that memo was poorly worded, and they knew the media would misunderstand it. So they simply kept three options available.
- Option 1: Romney wins in a landslide, he gets more delegates anyway, they go with the memo version of the rule
- Option 2: Santorum wins by enough that even the tinkering with the rules wouldn’t make a difference
- Option 3: The race is close enough that it is a split between Santorum and Romney, and they ratify the non-memo rule to give Romney the delegate edge
If this rule change would have given Santorum an edge, they would not have made the change. Anuzis and others would be explaining the rule as the memo explained it, and would not have ratified it in any other way. I have no proof that would have been the case, just my hunch.
It’s a shame such an exciting primary that provided a fantastic opportunity for Michigan to be in the national spotlight, was partially tarnished by some backroom dirty politics in Lansing.
Same old, same old.
–jb
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
I got my absentee ballot in the mail yesterday, and for the first time in memory I wasn’t looking forward to filing it out.
Don’t get me wrong, I love voting. I know mathematically speaking my vote means nothing, but as we saw in Iowa and Maine, a vote does count, and it does matter. I feel it is important for people to voice their opinion on politics. Go out and cast your vote, at least then you have a leg to stand on when you argue that so-and-so is a bad politician or ruining the country.
Either way, this GOP primary has been tough. Not just for the candidates, but for the voters. This is a tough field to gauge. On the one hand you have Mitt Romney, who was seen only four short years ago as the “conservative alternative” to John McCain. Now? People are searching for a “conservative alternative” to Romney. Some people believe Rick Santorum is that alternative, but it is becoming clearer that he is only more conservative on the social issues, and when it comes to the size and scope of government, Santorum could be classified as a big government republican.
Then there’s Newt Gingrich, who says really awesome things…sometimes. I find myself loving Gingrich one minute, and hating him the next. He’s erratic and unpredictable. I think he has great ideas, but poor ways of communicating them. He comes across as angry, which isn’t necessarily a poor trait considering most of the country is angry right now, but we don’t need a leader who is running around like a chicken with his head cutoff. We need a cool, calm, and collective leader who will get the job done.
Early in the campaign, back when he was polling in low single digits, I thought Santorum was that guy. I could see him being a leader, I could see him putting on that hard hat and going into Ground Zero. It kind of clicked. But he’s got some serious question marks economically and with his voting record. I’m concerned about his stance on earmarks, and I’m worried about some of the things he’s said in the past biting him the butt.
I started to look at this election from the perspective of general election voters and electability overall. Who would appeal most to independent voters, a vital voting bloc that needs to be corralled by the republicans, and honestly it’s a voting bloc that is dying to be enticed by a GOP candidate. The vast majority of Obama’s job approval erosion has come from the voters in the middle. They want someone else.
Which brings me to an interesting Gallup poll. 51% of respondents said Obama was too liberal, only 33% said Romney was too conservative, and only 38% said Santorum was too conservative. More people said Romney and Santorum were just right than said Obama was just right. 50% of independents said Obama was too liberal. Furthermore 50% of Americans said they disagreed with Obama on the issues. But more said they agree with Obama than Santorum or Romney. Which is interesting considering a majority said he was too liberal, and as we know from past Gallup polling, only 20% of the country identifies themselves as liberal.
Now there’s a couple of caveats on this polling. Obviously the agreement on the issues thing is up-in-the-air for Santorum and Romney right now, the contrast with Obama will become starker in the general election, then that number will truly matter. But the poll paints a weak outlook for Obama, certainly an up hill battle for his campaign. The majority of Americans disagree with him on the issues, how could he possibly win reelection?
Simple; he’s a good speaker, he can persuade people, he’s personable, he’s likeable, he can pretend really well that he’s a good leader. He’ll say, I need four more years to get my agenda done. He’s a great orator, but a poor leader. I really believe that the GOP needs a candidate that can hit Obama where it will really hurts; on leadership.
The right already has a leg up on the issues, this is still a center-right country. A majority disagrees with Obama on the issues, and that’s only bound to grow larger. But he can still portray himself as a leader.
So, for me this election is about who can beat Obama. And subsequently that is about who can challenge Obama on leadership skills. And even deeper its about who’s electable.
Looking at all the candidates, Mitt Romney fits all those characteristics. Out of the entire GOP field he has the most leadership experience. I’ll gladly take executive experience at the state level over congressional experience any day. He has the experience in the private sector that I like, and he’s been heavily vetted in two election cycles. We know all there is to know about Mitt Romney, there are no more skeletons in that closet.
Meanwhile, it seems the Rick Santorum dirt is just breaking ground. Every day there’s something else that comes out about him, and if it doesn’t damage him in the primary race, it will certainly damage him in the general election. I also believe some of his social views, which I generally agree with, are low hanging fruit in the general election. Mitt Romney holds many of the same views, without the bombastic soundbites to support those views. Rick Santorum is very outspoken, and I like that, but his way of communicating his beliefs can sometimes come across as crass and derogatory. That will hurt him.
Newt Gingrich has great ideas, but I seriously question his leadership. I’ll be honestly, the personal life bothers me. It shows a lack of integrity. And he has had questionable ethics in the past. I’m looking for honesty and integrity, and I don’t think he has it. I love his communication style, it’s straightforward, honest, and to the point, and it is largely spot on. But he’s also prone to gaffes and comments that are in the heat of the moment, not entirely thought through. That will hurt him in the general.
And then there’s Ron Paul. I don’t agree with him on many foreign policy issues, so there’s that. But furthermore I think he hasn’t been vetted at all. In these two elections no one has taken him seriously, so no one has worked to find the dirt on him. There have been a few issues, but nothing has stuck. He does have an army of supporters that seemingly blindly support him no matter what is revealed about his past, but that actually bothers me. It’s too Obama like.
Taking this all into account, it became clear that Romney was the wise choice. He might not be as conservative as I’d like, but he’s conservative on the right issues; the economic ones. He understands the economy and what will make it grow, and he has the leadership skills that are necessary to run the country. That is what’s important right now.
So my absentee ballot is in the mail, with the bubble for Romney filled in. I wouldn’t color myself an enthusiastic supporter, but I think he’s our best shot at beating Obama.
–jb
The GOP Primary race is heating up, and while Mitt Romney is still way out in front of the pack in terms of the delegate count, one candidate in particular is making another surge.
Rick Santorum?
Seriously, Santorum is still in this and he’s looking better and better with each passing day. After being left for dead after his bubble burst – as every candidate’s bubble has – Santorum has not given up. As of the latest delegate count he has 72 delegates, although that’s not a hard total. Santorum had a spectacular week winning Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado, unfortunately all three of those elections were non-binding, Colorado and Minnesota will award delegates at the state convention, and Missouri simply held a testing the waters primary, and will having a caucus in March.
Which means while Santorum can feel good about technically winning those states, he hasn’t really won them. It’s a delegate race, and Missouri could easily switch, and delegate distribution at the state convention in Minnesota and Colorado could go Romney’s way if he is the only man in the race in a few months.
That all means the upcoming race in Michigan is even more important. There is a considerable number of delegates at stake, 30 total, and the idea of any other candidate stealing what is essentially Romney’s home turf away from him, would be a huge game changer.
But can Santorum actually win? Could he really take the Great Lakes State?
A recent poll from PPP says yes, showing the former Pennsylvania Senator up 15%, meanwhile two previous polls taken in early February show Romney up 15%. So I guess the question is, did one week, mainly CPAC and his three wins, really sway that many Michiganders?
Let’s take a look at the 2008 results and analyze some of Romney’s weak spots last time around.
In 2008 there were clear geographic distinctions between McCain and Romney. Romney took most of the eastern portion of the state. These counties are the most densely populated and many of them have some of the highest income earners in the state. Particularly Oakland county, one of the richest counties not only in the state but the country, leaned Romney by 20%. Meanwhile some of the most rural lower income counties, particularly in the southwest portion of the state along the border of Indiana (St. Joseph, Branch, and Hillsdale) went McCain. Overall, of those earning less than $50,000 a year, McCain only lost by 1%. However those earning more than $50,000 a year went Romney by a nine percent margin. Of those that thought the US economy was poor, 34% voted for McCain, while 27% voted for Romney.
This is an interesting statistic. Seems that in 2008 those that you could deem “struggling” economically, were more prone to believe McCain was the answer. Michigan in 2008 was essentially the entire country of the last several years, Michigan has been in a recession for some time and when the 2008 primary was held they were certainly hurting, despite the fact that the economic meltdown wouldn’t come until the general election.
For the most part, McCain won the western portion of the state, save for Kent and Ottawa counties, two of the most conservative counties in the state. Which is interesting. In 2008 Romney was seen as the “conservative alternative” to McCain, or at least more conservative than McCain, while this year people are searching for a “conservative alternative” to Romney. Are Ottawa and Kent counties, which collectively made up 12% of GOP primary voters, looking for the conservative option this year? If so, they might view Santorum as that choice. It also helps that Santorum has strong religious ties, which is another important attribute to these two counties. If Santorum is going to win Michigan, he’ll have to take Ottawa and Kent counties, and those voters will have to look to him as the conservative alternative to Romney.
Like I mentioned above, those two counties are also strongly rooted in religion, which is why in 2008 Mike Huckabee did best in those two counties. Santorum is religious. That could certainly boost him on the west side of the state.
It’s also important to remember that while Romney calls Michigan home for election purposes, it’s not really home. Michiganders don’t seem to have any special connection to Romney and that seems to be the way Romney feels as well. I don’t think there’s much voting going on for Romney simply because he was born in the state and his father was governor.
So can Santorum win Michigan? He certainly can, so long as he wins Ottawa County and Kent County. If he can take those two, that’s a sign the state is looking for a conservative alternative instead of a familiar face.
–jb
Sometimes Obama makes me feel like this…
Literally a day after saying in his State of the Union speech that we need to put aside our differences and get stuff done AND claiming for the third straight year that we need to do something about illegal immigration, Obama travels to Arizona and visibly snubs GOP governor Jan Brewer who was asking Obama to visit the southern border and work on illegal immigration.
President Barack Obama and his deputies publicly snubbed Arizona’s Republican governor when she welcomed him at the Phoenix airport.
Gov. Jan Brewer met him at first stop of his five-state campaign swing with a hand-written letter asking him to visit the state’s southern border, which is a hotbed of illegal immigration and drug trafficking.
But Obama suddenly turned cold, claiming that her Nov. 2011 book mischaracterized their previous White House meeting in June 2010. He then quickly walked away.
Is this real life? Sadly, yes.
–jb
Earlier this week President Obama traveled to Disney World.
Nothing too weird there, plenty of people travel to Disney World everyday.
Earlier this week President Obama traveled to Disney World and shut down Main Street USA.
A little more unique, not many people can lay claim to shutting down and disrupting a major sector of America’s most loved theme park.
Earlier this week President Obama traveled to Disney World and shut down Main Street USA to talk about increasing tourism.
Wait what? Let me get this straight. Obama decides he wants to talk about increasing tourism, so he goes to one of the most sought after tourist destinations in the world, and makes it more difficult for those tourists to enjoy their time there.
Backwards doesn’t even begin to describe this.
Not only that, but his speech was all about giving himself more power to pass items that Congress simply doesn’t want to pass or act on. Ya know, that pesky checks and balances thing is actually working!
Let’s get one thing straight, Obama has no desire to increase tourism. This event at Disney World was simply a giant campaign event, an opportunity to get a photo and video of Obama in front of that magical castle. This speech could have easily been made at a more convenient location. But it is not like this president to pass up an opportunity to make people’s lives miserable so he can enjoy himself.
His $4 million vacation to Hawaii was not only absurd because of the price, it was absurd because of the location. He picked a house flanked by two bodies of water, therefore local coast guard and the Navy had to spend even more resources patrolling the area. Furthermore, because of the location and the size of the house, his security team had to rent out space in a local office complex so they could keep the president safe. All the while Camp David, a recreational getaway specifically designed for presidential retreats – security and all – remain doormat.
This Disney World speech is the same thing. Obama wants to speak in Disney World, regardless of how many people visiting the park that day it might inconvenience. Regardless of the security challenges it posed, Obama was speaking in front of that castle.
Because so far this presidency hasn’t been about the country, it’s been about Obama. What he wants, when he wants it, regardless of the cost. If he wants to fly to the furthest possible state to take his vacation, he’s will. If he wants to shut down a section of Disney World to have what is basically a photo op, he’s doing it. Obama continually claims Congress is putting themselves in front of country, but the only one proving that in practice is the Commander-in-Chief.
Yes, the president as a person is important, but he is serving the country, not the other way around. The job is inherently selfless, and should be treated as such. But as far as I can tell Obama has done nothing but act selfish in the position. Instead of buckling down and leading during the credit downgrade crisis, the debt limit debates, and the payroll tax cut fight, he sat on the sidelines, letting Congress bicker at each other, because it helped him politically.
I think I’ve been wrong before by claiming he’s failed to lead. He hasn’t failed to lead, he’s simply chosen not to. The actions of his entire presidency have been self motivated. Time and time again he has glossed over the actions that were right for the country, and instead chose the actions that were right for him. That explains his past statements complaining about Congressional action being necessary and how much easier the job would be if he could just take action unchecked. It explains why since September he’s been on a relentless campaign to secure as much executive power as possible, despite his criticisms of his predecessor doing the same.
Obama has officially become the “Me President.” Doing what is best for himself, without fail.
I think the American people are finally waking up to the inauthenticity of Obama.
Honestly, that Disney speech as just too transparent.
Two weeks. Two states. One winner.
So far, that’s the way this story goes.
In not-so-surprising fashion, Mitt Romney destroyed the field in New Hampshire with 40% of the vote, the next closest was second place Ron Paul with 23%. It was a dominate victory, but not a surprising one.
So we really have to scan the field to see what sticks out as surprising. What can we take away from the New Hampshire race. Just like I did with Iowa, here’s what each candidate can expect going forward.
Mitt Romney – Uh, a victory. As long as he can secure decent support in South Carolina, let’s be clear he doesn’t even have to win South Carolina, he’s the nominee. With that said, recent polls in the Palmetto State indicate another Romney victory. And if he sweeps the first three, it is game, set, match.
Ron Paul – Continue to be a pain in Romney’s side, and that is about it. Paul described his New Hampshire performance as “nibbling at the heels” of Romney, and declared it a “victory for liberty.” Part of me feels that it’s sad that a second place finish in one state’s primary is a “victory for liberty,” but at the same time this is the most success the libertarian party has ever had in the history of man. Ron Paul is interesting; part of me respects the man for standing by his ideas and beliefs and not wavering (although I’m not entirely sure that’s the case with the newsletters and all), but the other part of me is irritated by him. He has no problem taking advantage of the Republican Party’s money, human resources, clout, or media contacts, yet he seems to be as distant as you can get from the party while still being in it. He openly admits he probably won’t endorse the GOP nominee (he didn’t in 2008), which is fine, but I feel like some libertarian somewhere has to be a little peeved that Paul uses the GOP only as a catalyst for getting elected.
Jon Huntsman – I said if he finished top three he’d stay in, well, he’s staying in. No surprises here, he’s a weak candidate with a weak message. Seriously, what is the point of his campaign? He seems to make no effort to actually articulate a consistent message. Third is apparently a “victory” for him, but he stands no chance in any other state, he’ll be out after South Carolina if not sooner.
Newt Gingirch – What is Newt going to blame this dismal performance on? Romney’s attack ads? Obama? Mickey Mouse Games? I think it would do Gingrich a lot of good to just stop whining and run a clean positive campaign like he promised. During an ABC News interview in Iowa he said he was “committed to running a positive campaign,” and then he produced low blow hokey ads pointing out Romney’s “pious baloney.” He has shot himself in the foot in this campaign, he has no one to blame for this New Hampshire disappointment but himself.
Rick Santorum – Speaking of disappointments…remember last week when we all thought Santorum might have a shot at winning the Granite State? About that. He finished a not-so-respectable fifth. Considering he was in the top three for campaign stops in New Hampshire and was riding a tidal wave of momentum after basically winning Iowa, he should have at least beaten Gingrich. This is clearly the end of Santorum’s campaign. He can’t even capitalize and raise money, he’s currently running a $1 million money bomb that ends today, and he’s just over halfway to his goal. He’ll drop out after South Carolina.
Rick Perry – I know he wasn’t trying to win New Hampshire, but really? Not even 1%? When Buddy Roemer is within 1,000 votes of you, something’s wrong. Perry is all-in on South Carolina, so that’s really going to be a telling election. No one expected him to do very well in New Hampshire, but his performance was pathetic. If he doesn’t finish in the top three in South Carolina (or top two if Huntsman or Santorum drop out beforehand), he’ll be gone.
Essentially the take away from all of this is, if Romney takes South Carolina in 10 days, the election is over. I know there is a contingent of the right that isn’t happy about this, but honestly we have no one to blame but ourselves. I remember the last CPAC when Romney spoke, I was in the room at the time, and the crowd went wild, gave him a standing ovation. Could it be that it was simply Romney supporters packing the room? Maybe, but I doubt it. If there are so many republicans dissatisfied with Romney, why are they just now speaking up? Why not expose him and make it known before he decides to enter the race? They’re waiting until the last minute, it’s like sticking your hand in the Amazon River and quickly pulling it out right before the piranha bites you. The same happened in 2008, republicans stuck their hand in the water, and the piranha bit. Looks like that nasty creature is going to get us again.
–jb
The Iowa Caucus just wouldn’t let go. I guess they had emotional attachment problems.
It might have taken until 2:45AM EST, but the Iowa Caucuses were finally decided, and Mitt Romney got a slight victory, and when I say slight, I mean slight victory, over Rick Santorum. A mere eight votes separated them. Quite remarkable, and it was a very entertaining process to watch. First we had no idea why the vote tallying was taking so long. Then it was rumored a truck from Story county was delivering ballots slowly, then that was found to be false. Then Fox News reported that two precincts remained, but they had no idea why they weren’t being counted, and it seemed the Iowa Republican Party had the same lack of information.
Then finally one of the precincts was counted. It was then announced that a precinct in Story county was incorrectly counted and the recount gave Romney some extra votes. And then finally shortly after 2:30 in the morning, the chair of the Iowa GOP announced that the Santorum and Romney campaigns had agreed on the vote totals from the final precinct, and Romney had won by a mere eight votes.
Take a breath, it’s over.
The lead up to the Iowa Caucus was nearly a year, and you sure can’t say the finale was anti-climatic.
But where do we go from here? That’s one of 50 states, and in the grand scheme of delegate counting, it is rather meaningless. So what does it all mean? Romney won, but does it really matter?
The answer to that is an emphatic no. There is something to be said about the fact that Romney has essentially been campaigning for the presidency since losing in 2008, so squeaking out a win in Iowa by a single digit vote difference isn’t much to email your supporters about.
On the flip side, it wasn’t until recently that Romney campaigned in Iowa, meanwhile Santorum had moved his family there and visited all 99 counties, God bless the man for accomplishing that boring feat. Santorum has the edge here in momentum – he was polling in single figures only a few weeks ago, and all of a sudden he’s now sitting in the top tier. Quite the ascension. But can he hold on? Can he convert this into a close New Hampshire race and possibly a win?
The latest Gallup Daily Tracking Poll shows Romney with a three point advantage over Gingrich, and Santorum polling at around 8%. Keep in mind, this does not include a full run of polling after the Iowa Caucuses took place, so this poll will not show the full depth of a Santorum bump, but this poll will indicate if any pre-Caucus media attention gave Santorum a bump. He did see a 2% increase from the previous poll, so I would imagine he’ll see a decent post-Caucus bump in the next few days.
But the national polls don’t matter; New Hampshire matters. Again, we won’t have a New Hampshire poll until Friday at the earliest that includes sentiment after the Iowa Caucus, but Santorum certainly has his work cut out for him. The last poll in the Granite State showed Romney with a 29% advantage and Santorum sitting at 6%.
The key is, can Santorum take advantage of the momentum? It’s already been reported that in one day he was able to raise $1 million, an impressive feat considering not more than a month ago he had to extend his $250,000 money bomb to a fourth day and still didn’t reach the quarter-million mark. But can he wisely spend that money? Reports indicate that advertising time in New Hampshire is largely purchased, so he can’t run commercials, not that TV ads won him Iowa anyway.
Santorum has one thing going for him; it’s his turn. This has been an election of bubbles. Every candidate not named Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman have seen a rapid rise in the polls, followed by a loud popping sound, and a rapid decline in the polls. Santorum was on deck, and now he’s at bat. I don’t think it matters how he spends that money in New Hampshire or that he can’t buy ad time or visit every square inch of soil, he’s the flavor of the week, and he’ll be the flavor of the week regardless of where voting is taking place.
Will Santorum win New Hampshire? I don’t think so, Romney is up by too much, and with only a week left Santorum would have to do an awful lot of convincing. There are two debates between now and the primaries, and Santorum has not been quiet on the debate stage. If he can handle the pressure of being a few podiums over in the center of the stage, he might be able to weasel his way to the top, if not he could stall. But even a close second or third in New Hampshire would be enough to carry momentum to South Carolina, and that race is up for grabs right now.
There are, however, other candidates in this race. Here’s what’s next for everyone else.
Mitt Romney – It’s do or die time for the Mitt-ster. New Hampshire is his baby, while he did spend some time in Iowa, he has made it clear New Hampshire is his focus. If he doesn’t win the granite state he suddenly becomes very vulnerable. If he wins by the margin in the current polls, he’ll sail those New England Atlantic Coast winds to Tampa and take the nomination.
Newt Gingrich – Time to get angry, but not too angry. Being angry isn’t difficult for Gingrich, he could be sitting in a box of kittens and still be angry. This Romney PAC that may or may not be associated with Mitt, but let’s be honest it is, has been hitting Gingrich pretty hard over the last few weeks, now it is time for Gingrich to fight back. He needs to make solid well rounded negative points about Romney. Gingrich cannot play, as he would say, “Mickey Mouse games.” Gingrich is known for his intelligence, poise, and ideas, he needs to use those traits in his fight against Romney.
Ron Paul – It’s over for Ron Paul, impressive attempt in Iowa, but he needed a caucus victory to really make an impact. I actually think, based on poll numbers and his own hyperbole, that his caucus performance was rather disappointing. He was expected to place second with an outside chance of winning, instead he placed third by 4,000 votes. He has the enthusiasm from a dedicated fan base, but not enough broad support to win any state.
Rick Perry – He really needed to beat Gingrich in Iowa. That would have been a moral victory for the Texas Governor and would have at least provided some show of support. Perry focused hard on Iowa, but also has solid support in New Hampshire and South Carolina. After “reassessing” his campaign for a mere 16 hours, he said on twitter today that he would be headed to South Carolina for a victory. That’s a smart move by him, we have very little poll numbers from South Carolina since Gingirch’s fall, but we assume the state is essentially up for grabs. Perry has done decent there, and now that Bachmann has left, he might pick up some of her supporters, although they are few and far between. However, a disappointing performance in South Carolina will surely spell the ultimate demise of his campaign.
Michelle Bachmann – She suspended her campaign, which legally gives her the option to jump back in, which might seem like an option now, but after struggling in Iowa and to make any noise in the debates, it’s hard to see a scenario in which she jumps back in and has success. She’ll go back to Minnesota and focus on being a Congresswoman.
Jon Huntsman – New Hampshire or die, it is that simple. Huntsman has pulled a Santorum in New Hampshire, he’s all in. If he fails to take the Granite State, or fails to finish in the top three (he’s polling in fourth right now) he’ll immediately drop out. However, if he wins or comes in the top three, he’ll really have to fight to get in the top tier considering he has limited operations in other states.
There are two debates before New Hampshire, those will be critical for everyone. Romney will need to defend himself against inevitable attacks from both Santorum and Gingrich. Santorum will need to make some noise and prove he can handle the pressure of center stage. Gingrich will have to fire some verbal nukes towards Romney. And Huntsman will have to appeal to New Hampshire voters who are still not sure about which bubble to fill in on Tuesday. It will be an interesting debate and a critical one as well.
Until then, enjoy this crazy political climate. Elections are addicting to watch and see unfold, and they only come every so often, take it all in while you can.
–jb
UPDATE
Well, we have a New Hampshire poll. It’s a Washington Post poll and it indicates that Santorum might see a bit of a bump after his surprising Iowa finish.
Fresh off his near-win in Iowa, Rick Santorum has leaped to double-digits in The Washington Times/JZ Analytics Poll, taken Wednesday, more than tripling his support from last week.
He’s still in third, and he’s still 27% behind Romney, heck he’s still 13% behind Paul, but anytime you can triple your support you’re doing well.
Tomorrow we’ll probably get a better idea of if this poll is an outlier, or if a significant Santorum bump in the Granite State is the norm.