Posted on 03/12/2012 7:52:34 AM PDT by VinL
oops, forgot to add this to my previous post.
Under either scenario, NG and RS will think that they will start to consolidate the non Mitt vote and both will think they can get to that 50% mark as voters shift.
Guarantee that’s how THEY are looking at it. Again, not sure I agree...
Newt losing tomorrow might help us beat Romney in the long run, and I’m not happy about that as a Newt supporter. But if Newt wins, he has enough argument to say he has strength to continue in the race. Meanwhile Rick’s blowout Kansas win this weekend already gives him reason to stay in. If Rick wins tomorrow, Newt might realize his best bet is to bow out and be Rick’s second fiddle. And if Romney wins, they might both realize they need to make a deal or they’re both finished. I don’t see a path to victory unless one of them drops out or Romney’s support somehow craters. The direction they’re going, with both attacking each other, is bad, bad, bad and all wrong. The only way to possibly win without one of them dropping out is to tag-team Romney with all they’ve got.
You’re not looking at this like they are. Newt and RS are not Freepers who live to defeat Mitt. That’s not their only focus. Thus, your analysis, correct from the point of view of beating Romney at all costs - is not their analysis.
You also are elevating a tiny caucus in Kansas to the level of a southern full out primary . They are not equivalent. The total turn out in Kansas will be a mere rounding error for the city of Birmingham or Biloxi’s turn out tomorrow.
I can't imagine that their focus is on making sure they lose and that either Mitt or Obama become President. This is about one of them realizing the reality of the math and accepting that half a loaf is better than none. As of right now, they're headed for the kind of conclusion where they stubbornly insist on splitting the baby and neither ending up with any baby at all.
You also are elevating a tiny caucus in Kansas to the level of a southern full out primary . They are not equivalent. The total turn out in Kansas will be a mere rounding error for the city of Birmingham or Biloxi’s turn out tomorrow.
It's not me elevating it, it's the RNC. Kansas had 40 delegates. Miss. has 40 and Alabama has 50.
I’ve also heard a couple commentators say that primary polls tend to be especially inaccurate in Alabama and Mississippi (that on top of primary polls generally being less precise). I can’t verify that, though; my quick internet search didn’t turn up anything enlightening. It’d be interesting if someone could corroborate this. At any rate, big wins for Gingrich in both Alabama and Mississippi would put a lot of egg on Rasmussen’s face. I think Newt will win both. Late deciders should favor him as the most authentically Southern candidate and find the painfully phoney Southern Willard off-putting, with his “cheesy grits” and other bs.
Huckabee seemed to do better than polled in 2008. If that was due to religious GOTV, then that would help Santorum this time:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/al/alabama_republican_primary-280.html
Obama surged a few points above the polls in the MS and AL primaries:
I guess you could say the most “grass roots” candidate performs better on election day here. So if it’s an anti-establishment vote, maybe that will help Newt.
Santorum was 11 points higher than this poll said.
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.