Posted on 01/16/2012 11:27:01 AM PST by VinL
The withdrawal of Jon Huntsman from the Republican presidential race is drawing a range of reactions from his competitors. Newt Gingrich told Politico that he could be a beneficiary of the move.
"It narrows down the field, and I think the next five or six days are going to tell the tale. If the conservatives consolidate, it's clear that I'll beat Romney,” he said.
Gingrich said he is looking forward to the candidates debate in South Carolina tonight. “I'm having to re-gear myself,” he said.
“Notice that they said we're now going to get 90 seconds to answer. The next five days are going to be wild. Really, the test here is simple: If the conservatives consolidate, Romney loses decisively. If they don't consolidate, it's going to be very close,” he said, referring to the South Carolina primary on Saturday.
Meanwhile, Rick Perry apparently will miss the campaign entertainment that Huntsman’s three daughters. "I was hoping I'd get the Huntsman girls,” he said, lamenting the fact that Huntsman moved into former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s camp when he dropped his own bid today.
“We love the Huntsman girls, our kids get along well, and Mary Kaye [Huntsman’s wife] and Anita [Perry’s wife] are best friends. Jon’s a dear friend, too, and we’ve had a wonderful time getting to know the candidates.”
Although Huntsman and Perry were competing for the same job,
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
There is no way that you would know this but I perfer Santorum over Newt.
Otherwise, a few delegates at this stage in the race are not that important.
What is more important is knocking out Romney.
If either one of the Ricks were in second I would be saying vote for which ever Rick was in second.
Angle’s nomination made it very easy for Reid. I stated from the get-go that she would be the only nominee who could lose. Angle already had a nasty habit of losing elections (two priors) and pissing off the wrong people. She revealed her ugly side with making unproven allegations of fraud in a GOP primary she lost to Dean Heller (and that almost cost Heller his election to the House, for which he would not be Senator today if it had happened).
A LOT of ticket splitting occurred in NV with some Republicans and Independents going for Reid while Sandoval got the votes any non-controversial GOP nominee would’ve received (Lowden, Tarkanian, either would’ve won). We had the same problem with the damaged nominee in Colorado (Ken Buck) as well who lost to a non-entity Democrat seatwarmer in a race that we had no business losing. That mess also didn’t help in the CO Governor’s race, either. If we don’t properly vet our candidates ahead of time and gauge their viability for the general, we’re just begging to lose.
BTW, that’s the first time I ever heard that Carter had a higher approval rating than Reagan. Carter’s approvals, IIRC, were around the 30s going into the 1980 election. Are you claiming Reagan’s were lower than the 30s ?
*****************
No. I’m stating that Reagan was down over 30 points in the polls with 6 weeks of the election.
Incidentally, I don’t know about Ms. harris, but Angle lost because, while Reid may have been unpopular in his state, he wasn’t unpopular with the GOP elite— who refused to campaign or fund Ms. Angle.
If this entire discussion has been to promote Santorum, then, you just should have said so. I have nothing against him- I wish him lick.
Newt would be better at changing DC, imo.
Nice maps- especially the blues and reds. _:)
What I would hope is a concise, easy to understand description of what Bain Capitol did that is, in my mind, very troubling. All it seems to get is the suggestion that it is business as usual capitalism. What Bain Capitol was doing was not business as usual. Something was happening when a company buys a company, squeezes out its assets and leaves it with closed doors and employees on the street. Can such predatory activity be ethical? Do we look the other way when business practices take on mutant forms and use the mechanisms of high finances to cover for their unethical practices?
Would you let a home builder to sell you a house built with below-standard building materials? I am not for government regulation but I am for those with the information to inform the public. Then, that business that’s looking to buy your company, will be known for what it intends to do with your company once you sell it to them. The same for the builder that is putting in building materials not designed for rainy climates or sloping concrete deck areas towards the walls and improper flashing on the roof. With today’s information age, more can be said about shoddy business practices than regulations used to stop them. That is why I would like an explanation of what Bain Capitol was doing without the descriptive phrases covering up and spinning the truth of the matter.
I hope the eloquent ability of Newt will get the truth of the matter out tonight in the debate.
The 1992 race was so unusual, it’s hard to apply to other races. Why ? Because it was a 3-person race. Clinton got less of a % of the vote than Dukakis did in 1988, the losing candidate. Perot almost exclusively took from GHW Bush. You might even remember before Perot first pulled out, he was in the lead and Clinton was toast. Had he not pulled out, it’s quite possible Perot would’ve won the race (how that would’ve translated to governance, it’s hard to tell). Even as Clinton won and Bush, Sr. lost, the GOP increased its numbers in the U.S. House in ‘92 (which would help with eventually winning in 1994).
Sad part is that had someone other than Bush been the nominee, we might’ve seen a different scenario. It didn’t help that Lee Atwater died, who would’ve obliterated Perot and Clinton. It also didn’t help that Bush was seen (partly as you cited) as being out of touch on the economy. I rather loathe the fact that Reagan ever chose Bush for VP to placate the establishment wing of the party, I’d rather he have chosen fellow Westerner, Nevada Senator (and former Governor) Paul Laxalt. Laxalt kept the execrable Harry Reid from winning his current Senate seat as long ago as 1974.
“Rick Santorum has the least baggage of all those running...”
Santorum is one of the most principled politicians we have!
“Something was happening when a company buys a company, squeezes out its assets and leaves it with closed doors and employees on the street. Can such predatory activity be ethical?”
Absolutely. That is the essence of capitalism, really. It’s survival of the fittest. If you start with the idea that the government should ordain that you can’t shut down a company that is doing poorly, then you have socialism, and it’s clear that socialism has been a failure. That is precisely why I can’t support a candidate that ascribes to those views, as apparently Newt does.
I don’t put much stock into claims Carter was leading as such. His approvals had been in the toilet for some time (I recall that his lowest point was in 1979, although had the election been held a year earlier, it’s doubtful the outcome would’ve been much different). It was as dubious a claim as Dukakis leading by a landslide in 1988. The media was terrified of a Reagan win (or Bush win, for that matter), so anything could be spun as aiding their Democrat candidate.
Of course, there is one other problem any GOP candidate for President faces these days unlike in 1980 (or even as recently as 1988). They can’t run a “national” race anymore. Some states have moved so far out of the mainstream that it is a complete waste of time to bother with. California and New York are two places that come to mine (OR/WA, NJ and most of New England save NH are others). Just as there are a number of bedrock states which will not vote Democrat and would be stupid to contest (my state, TN, Zero didn’t even bother with... 2008 ended up looking like 1972 as he carried just a handful of counties).
I agree with most of your map, Fieldmarshaldj. I would give Rick FL, NC, VA, OH, PA, IN, and IA. I would hope that such a reasonable approach would have some effect on these Newt supporters, but I fear it won’t. Classic case of hopium overdose.
During one of the mergers, I even recommended reorganizing my department to eliminate my job and a couple of others. It would have provided the same services in a slightly different structure, but at a much cheaper price. I am glad to say, they decided they needed me more than the money.LOL.
Since I began my career, as an auditor, I just naturally look for checks and balances in the corporations as well as the government. The particular business model developed by Romney has certain inherent weaknesses in internal control.
It's not a big problem, if all the participants are honest and ethical, but temptation is there, and like auditors always say: Trust is great, but internal control checks and balances is better.LOL.
I too have been less than happy with the field. It's puzzling. I wonder, if they think Obama can't be beat? Are they just not willing to face the onslaught of the monstrous machine? Are things so bad, no one can really do much and they want to avoid the blame of being worse than Obama?
Sometimes I feel like this is just a show we have every 4 years. The kingmakers stay out of sight. Pick their main man. Pick other candidates to match against him, and put on a show for the crowd as the gladiators go at it. Main rule is their golden boy can't be hurt too much, just toughened up to survive for the main event.
The "essence of capitalism" is squeezing out a company's assets and making a huge profit for doing so? I thought the essence of capitalism had more to do with building businesses. Your definition sounds more like Social Darwinism.
The tougher one would be figuring out what a Willard map would be. Since he would depress turnout amongst Conservatives, the question is whether how much of it would he make up with Independents and White Democrats (probably Urban/Suburban) in carrying certain states.
He’ll carry the usual bedrock GOP states, I think the map would be similar to McCain’s 2008, give or take a few states, but not enough for a general win (add to that, I expect a full-blown media emphasis/attack on painting him as a member of a racist church on the Mormon issue, so that could just as easily scare those aforementioned fencesitting White (sub)urban Democrats & Indies back to Zero AND gin up an apathetic Black vote in key states). He certainly won’t carry MA (nor perhaps his home state of MI), nevermind the coastal states of either west or northeast. Best state will probably be Utah (no surprise).
Then again, I don’t even want to ponder what a Willard regime would be like. Having followed his disastrous reign in MA, it is truly a frightening prospect.
[And Rush ended the show with a Newt caller.]
...and I noticed he responded with a weak...glad you could get through.
Rush is being handcuffed by someone with a hell of a lot power and influence.
I read both your posts- you make a good analysis and obviously are well versed. Looking to this election, I just see it as likely to be the most contentious in my lifetime. You have the Chicago gang that will play down and dirty with class warfare and race— against unfortunately, the perfect foil— a very rich, privileged fellow from Lilly white Utah.
But, I’ll stick with my non-iron rule— if Europe continues to tank, or Iran erupts- or we have $4.+ gas this summer— he is not going to get reelected. On the other hand, if the economy upturns, I think he wins.
As to Reagan Carter, just for your info, here’s a table I picked up on the internet re Regan Carter-
TABLES
The latest ABC News -Harris Survey asked a cross section of 1,498 likely voters nationwide between March 5th and 8th:
“Suppose for President it was between former Governor Ronald Reagan for the ReDublicans and President Jimmy Carter for the Democrats, if you had to choose right now, would you vote for Reagan or Carter?”
PREFERENCE FOR REAGAN OR CARTER IN 1980
Reagan CarterNot sure
—%-%%
March 1980 40 58 2
Februdry 32 64 4
Late November 1979 44 53 3
If Mitt ended up the candidate and it was close in my state (currently Illinois) — I’d get the biggest vise I could on my nose then vote a straight R in the general. But I’m not boosting Mitt to be the candidate. I do feel that people who are alarmed about how Romneycare might carry over into the Federal realm are nit picking compared to much worse troubles with Mitt.
VinL,
Your argument is based on logic and a balanced view of American human behavior. I do not believe we are looking at logical scenarios here. In the 30’s through until his death, FDR rode socialism through one election and 3 reelections, the last on his own deathbed. The economy dragged and dragged for years before we entered the war. FDR preached government and used his psychology to alleviate fears of the working man via enabling government.
The current leftists running our country laugh at the constitution, appoint more leftists even when the senate is still in session, and there is no measurable opposition to giving Obama another $1 trillion to spend in an election year. In normal times your analysis is spot on. These are not normal times. Romney has no chance if Obama continues to feed fears with more free govt. money. Our greatest opposition is not Obama - it’s the moderates running Congress. They of course only want a moderate GOP nominee to let them continue to steal until the country falls in a heap.
I believe the only candidate that gives us a chance is Gingrich. His record in governance tells us exactly what he does in positions of leadership. He is a patriot first. Romney is a capitalist first. Romney is a moderate. You cannot beat a leftist with a moderate.
When given a choice between a democrat and a democrat, they’ll pick the democrat every time.
I didn’t hear that in Rush’s voice...in fact, he did say that nothing was over yet because anything can happen in politics.
I’m with you, untwist- in no particular order:
1. The establishment hates Newt, so he must be anti establishment.
2. He will change DC.
3. He has a huge ego, wants to do historic things- and therefore, isn’t going to sit around and just watch the store.
It would be a very exciting Presidency.
the egos of perry and santorum will not allow this.
kook pauls agenda will not allow this.
Perry is done and he is just generating money and hoping for a mistake opening.
kook paul is running to make money.
santorum well he did support super rino.
True. But one would think a business that's not economically viable is perfectly capable of going out of business by itself without paying a hefty management fee to achieve that end! ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.