Replies

Romneycare! Romneycare! Romneycare!

I’m not excited. I regret we can’t have a few years of peace from the campaigning but it’s neverending.

Right now I’m holding back. When all the entrants are known I’ll pick a side. I’m hoping conservatives will pick a few they like and then rally to which one of those has the best chance of winning the nomination and election. If we have another primary like 2008 where someone like McCain sneaks by because conservatives are split half a dozen ways I’ll be ticked.

I am going to disagree with the article. The writer is basically going back to about '76 for his patterns, and even that doesn't work so well. Did Clinton win Iowa or New Hampshire in '92? No.

Who won Iowa? Tom Harkin.

Who won New Hampshire? Paul Tsongas.

Clinton managed to "exceed expectations" in New Hampshire and held on for the South. He also managed to paint Harkin and Tsongas as "favorite sons" who would be expected to win their home states.

But wait. Tsongas isn't from New Hampshire. Correct. Where is he from? Massachusetts. Romney's win in New Hampshire, if he gets it, could be painted in the same light.

Tsongas was a Dem, you say? What about Republicans? Yes. Pat Buchanan won in '96. Dole, almost a favorite son in farmy Iowa won there. Buchanan overplayed his insurgent hand and faded fast. New Hampshire was a non-factor.

The field is going to be huge in 2012, and some of the players are just there for the VEEP stakes, others are there to claim a pole position in 2016 or 2020.

Because the March primaries are proportional this time around, there won't be a lock on the nomination before Ash Wednesday like there was last time. I am frankly surprised that true Favorite Sons (state figure running only to control a state's delegation) have not made a comeback.

If Palin wins Iowa, and Romney wins NH, neither will be anointed--Palin because the Republican machinery can't stand her (whether it's because they think she'll be Goldwater II or because she upsets their apple cart doesn't matter.), Romney because he is completely unacceptable to both very wide swaths of the Republican Party and to an entire region of the country (the South).

If you have a dozen candidates, and Palin doesn't run away with it in the south and midwest, you might see many of these candidates with significant numbers of delegates.

Let's say Palin wins narrow in Iowa, with Daniels, Pawlenty and/or Thune finishing close. Romney wins NH, with Bolton and Gingrich finishing in the upper tier. Romney wins Nevada, with Gary Johnson and Palin strong. DeMint wins SC. Perry wins Texas. Romney wins Utah. Palin and Romney carve up the mountain states. The strongest of Daniels, Thune and Pawlnty split with Palin in the midwest. Palin and DeMint in the South, with pockets of strength by Bolton and Gingrich in both the south and the northeast.

You could have a multi-ballot convention.

Or not. The smart candidates don't look only at what happened in the past, but also take into consideration rules changes, the political landscape and the current field to see how they can break the pattern to their advantage.

Here is where Palin would have an advantage. She will have the money and the clout to stay in and have a following even with a loss in Iowa and a weak finish in New Hampshire. She is not Giuliani. AS LONG AS NO ONE POPULAR ALTERNATIVE BREAKS AWAY FROM THE PACK, THERE IS NO REASON FOR HER TO QUIT.

The closest parallel I can see to what is shaping up is the 1976 Dem contest. Carter won big, but largely because Jerry Brown, Scoop Jackson and Frank Church jumped in way too late, not seeing how the new rules would affect the process.

Even so, guys like Mo Udall, Jerry Brown and Scoop Jackson stayed in rather late because they saw Carter as a regional candidate. It was a weak field. UNCOMMITTED won Iowa.

There are not five paths to the 2012 nomination. There are about a dozen.

One way NOT to win is to advocate reform of Social Security and Medicare.