Newt Gingrich has received the endorsement of popular radio host Steve Deace..........But does anyone care at this point?
The Deace endorsement was sought after by all the candidates, because he is arguably the most popular radio personality among conservatives. And, he gave the thumbs up to Huckabee, who famously captured Iowa in a surprising manner.
The question is, did Deace's endorsement come too late? While Gingrich had been in freefall mode of late, his drop seems to have stabilized in the 13-15% range. The problem now is that both Perry and Santorum have finally made the climb and are both tied with Newt for the seemingly important 3rd place finish.
Santorum's campaign has momentum, which, with 6 days before the caucus, is a big deal. Perry seems to have strong-armed his way back into double digits, by pilfering from Bachmann's increasingly disillusioned base, with big time ads and significant spending. I can't imagine too many people will actually vote for Perry come caucus time. Think about it... No one really thinks he can win the election and defeat Romney, lest he face Obama. That's not saying that Santorum can beat Romney or Obama either, however, this is Santorum's first time experiencing the so called "surge", and surging candidates generally trump any other similar candidate, which in this case, includes Perry, Bachmann, and a bloc of Gingrich supporters.
If Santorum doesn't make too many extreme comments this week, maybe he can climb into the high teens and stay for a little while longer.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Friday, December 30, 2011
Don't Get Your Hopes Up, Rick
There's been a lot of chattering about Surging Santorum these days. Why? Because he finished in 3rd place in a recent Iowa poll.
Lets all give a round of applause for Rick Santorum. Clap clap clap.
Now let's take a closer look at the poll. It was conducted only among Republicans. That's like asking people about gun rights at an NRA convention. Okay, maybe not that extreme, but still ridiculous. In the actual upcoming caucus, it is known that many Democrats will switch to Independent or even Republican in order to vote, and most certainly not for Santorum. But...they weren't included in the poll? One wonders if polls like these are conducted to drum up news stories because an unlikely candidate may enter the mix (due to insufficient respondents). That's why I'm not going to dignify the name of the group/company that conducted the poll. And it's not because I forgot and am now too lazy and uninterested to Google search them. I promise.
That is why Paul has been surging of late- all of the Democrats and Independents are professing their love for him. But will they actually vote for him come caucus time? It depends. But you can be sure that Santorum has no where to go after Iowa. Even if he does finish in 3rd place, seemingly ahead of Gingrich, he has zero support in the more moderate New Hampshire. Sorry Santorum.
Lets all give a round of applause for Rick Santorum. Clap clap clap.
Now let's take a closer look at the poll. It was conducted only among Republicans. That's like asking people about gun rights at an NRA convention. Okay, maybe not that extreme, but still ridiculous. In the actual upcoming caucus, it is known that many Democrats will switch to Independent or even Republican in order to vote, and most certainly not for Santorum. But...they weren't included in the poll? One wonders if polls like these are conducted to drum up news stories because an unlikely candidate may enter the mix (due to insufficient respondents). That's why I'm not going to dignify the name of the group/company that conducted the poll. And it's not because I forgot and am now too lazy and uninterested to Google search them. I promise.
That is why Paul has been surging of late- all of the Democrats and Independents are professing their love for him. But will they actually vote for him come caucus time? It depends. But you can be sure that Santorum has no where to go after Iowa. Even if he does finish in 3rd place, seemingly ahead of Gingrich, he has zero support in the more moderate New Hampshire. Sorry Santorum.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Gingrich: Paul Will Never Be Republican Nominee
I read recently that Gingrich stated that Ron Paul will never be the Republican nominee for President. This is something that most people already know, but it was interesting to hear it in such brute terms.
One wonders, though, what would happen if Paul wins Iowa. He is currently polling at 24%, with Romney at 20%, and Gingrich at a surprising 13%. If Paul did win Iowa, pundits speculate that it will make the road to victory for Romney much easier. It will knock out Gingrich, and help stabilize the conservative trinity of Santorum, Perry, and Bachmann.
Still, though, what will the Party do about Paul? Everyone knows deep down that he can cause big problems, namely by running as an Independent, and siphoning off huge blocs of votes from the eventual Republican nominee. I wonder if there may be negotiations between Paul and the RNC, offering to give him more of a role in the government.
One wonders, though, what would happen if Paul wins Iowa. He is currently polling at 24%, with Romney at 20%, and Gingrich at a surprising 13%. If Paul did win Iowa, pundits speculate that it will make the road to victory for Romney much easier. It will knock out Gingrich, and help stabilize the conservative trinity of Santorum, Perry, and Bachmann.
Still, though, what will the Party do about Paul? Everyone knows deep down that he can cause big problems, namely by running as an Independent, and siphoning off huge blocs of votes from the eventual Republican nominee. I wonder if there may be negotiations between Paul and the RNC, offering to give him more of a role in the government.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Why Newt Was Closed Out of Virgina Primary
In a surprisingly unshocking happening, Newt Gingrich was booted off the ticket by the Republican Party of Virgina, as his 10,000 signatures did not qualify.
This seems to be rather odd. How could a major candidate not qualify to register a seemingly measly 10,000 signatures, in his adopted home state nonetheless?
The answer is that Gingrich submitted 11,000 signatures. Now I'm no mathematician, but 11,000 is more than 10,000. So why are Ron Paul and Mitt Romney the only two candidates to qualify on the ballot for 2012?
Because for the first time, the State decided to cross-check voters' names with addresses that said voters originally gave the State's voting registry. This means that if there wasn't a match with the current address/name with the address listed in the original database, the signature was thrown out.
Clearly, this would cause a multitude of thrown out signatures, assuming people moved to different addresses but failed to notify the voter registry.
A Gingrich official shares his unhappiness:
"It is also important to note that this is not an election and therefore the issue is not about preventing fraud or making sure 'every vote counts'. This is about whether Gingrich, Romney, Paul, and Perry (or Santorum or Bachman for that matter) belong on the Republican ballot for the nomination. Of course they do. Keeping them off by some arbitrary process based on potentially inaccurate government data potentially PREVENTS people from casting their vote as they want if their candidate is excluded from the ballot by this process. Many states, for example, leave the issue of who should be on the ballot for party nomination to the discretion of the Secretary of State and/or the Party."
This seems to be rather odd. How could a major candidate not qualify to register a seemingly measly 10,000 signatures, in his adopted home state nonetheless?
The answer is that Gingrich submitted 11,000 signatures. Now I'm no mathematician, but 11,000 is more than 10,000. So why are Ron Paul and Mitt Romney the only two candidates to qualify on the ballot for 2012?
Because for the first time, the State decided to cross-check voters' names with addresses that said voters originally gave the State's voting registry. This means that if there wasn't a match with the current address/name with the address listed in the original database, the signature was thrown out.
Clearly, this would cause a multitude of thrown out signatures, assuming people moved to different addresses but failed to notify the voter registry.
A Gingrich official shares his unhappiness:
"It is also important to note that this is not an election and therefore the issue is not about preventing fraud or making sure 'every vote counts'. This is about whether Gingrich, Romney, Paul, and Perry (or Santorum or Bachman for that matter) belong on the Republican ballot for the nomination. Of course they do. Keeping them off by some arbitrary process based on potentially inaccurate government data potentially PREVENTS people from casting their vote as they want if their candidate is excluded from the ballot by this process. Many states, for example, leave the issue of who should be on the ballot for party nomination to the discretion of the Secretary of State and/or the Party."
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Ron Paul Officially Takes Iowa Lead
"An Iowa Stat/Gazette/KCRG has Ron Paul in first place with 27.5 percent of 333 likely caucusgoers among
the 740 registered Republicans and 200 registered independents
contacted by ISU. That’s up from 20.4 percent in an ISU/Gazette/KCRG
poll in November. He’s followed closely by former U.S. House Speaker
Newt Gingrich whose support increased from 4.8 percent to 25.3 percent.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney came in at 17.5 percent, up from
16.3"
This poll contains so many unknowns that it is hard to quantify it. Generally speaking, when someone says they will support Ron Paul, they will support Ron Paul. No matter the weather on January 3rd, Ron Paul supporters will be out and about in droves and placing their votes for the 76 year old Congressman.
However, there is a snag with this latest poll- 200 out of the 940 respondents were independents. It has long been rumored that in this particular election cycle, many democrats have registered as independents and/or Republicans, in order to voice support and ultimately vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, with the intention of going back to Democratic for the general Presidential election.
For that reason, Ron Paul's surging poll numbers could be extremely unreliable. For the zeal of his supporters, he might blow Gingrich and Romney out of the water. But for the trickery of secret Democrats, Paul's big lead might be one big sham.
This poll contains so many unknowns that it is hard to quantify it. Generally speaking, when someone says they will support Ron Paul, they will support Ron Paul. No matter the weather on January 3rd, Ron Paul supporters will be out and about in droves and placing their votes for the 76 year old Congressman.
However, there is a snag with this latest poll- 200 out of the 940 respondents were independents. It has long been rumored that in this particular election cycle, many democrats have registered as independents and/or Republicans, in order to voice support and ultimately vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, with the intention of going back to Democratic for the general Presidential election.
For that reason, Ron Paul's surging poll numbers could be extremely unreliable. For the zeal of his supporters, he might blow Gingrich and Romney out of the water. But for the trickery of secret Democrats, Paul's big lead might be one big sham.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Why 2 Jets Instead of 1?
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney eloquently sidesteps the fair question of why Obama's family needs two Air Force 1 jets to fly them to Hawaii. The Hawaii Reporter calculates the total trip as costing $3.1 million, most of which is provided by taxpayers. How's that for an economic plan?
The Problem With Iowa Polling
As mentioned in a previous post, Iowa pre-caucus polls are notoriously unpredictive, as not every voter's preference will drive him or her to action. For instance, someone who supports Romney and plans to vote for him might find himself quickly uninterested in voting if it were to rain on Thursday night. Ron Paul supporters, however, are expected to vote even if a hailstorm were to overtake the entire state of Iowa.
Another issue may play a part. Recent polls have Gingrich plummeting. Politico reported a poll which puts Gingrich at 14%, after achieving a high of 32% just two weeks ago. However, most polls seem to have Paul, Romney, and Gingirch in similar polling territory.
One problem I have with this sudden precipitious drop for Gingrich numbers are the way polls are taken. If a polling service polls 1000 households, but only 700 households answer the phone, the pollster will keep calling until he reaches 1000 actual people, which may take over 1500 actual calls. This, however, is an imperfect way of obtaining true results. Perhaps voters who don't answer the phone or simply aren't home are more likely to endorse a certain candidate, say, Newt Gingrich?
A significant, reliable stable of Gingrich supporters are said to be of the elderly crowd. It's no secret that elderly people have a spotty history at answering the phone. My grandmother is not home from 8 am until 5 pm every day, and she doesn't even have a job. What's she doing all day? Elderly things. Going to banks, supermarkets, haggling over prices in different stores, and spending time in the library. If a pollster were to call her, said pollster has about a 45 minute window during the actual day to catch my grandmother and record her probable Gingrich support.
Your question now might be, "Well, if pollsters are missing all of the Gingrich support, how do you explain his current drop to 14% from 32%? Why didn't they miss it when he was at 32%?"
The answer is simple- polls are much more frequent now, lending the way toward higher margins of error. There are still a number of polls which have Gingrich in the mid 20's percentage. While Newt may have dipped a bit, the precipitous nature in which the media has portrayed it seems to be a bit overdone.
Another issue may play a part. Recent polls have Gingrich plummeting. Politico reported a poll which puts Gingrich at 14%, after achieving a high of 32% just two weeks ago. However, most polls seem to have Paul, Romney, and Gingirch in similar polling territory.
One problem I have with this sudden precipitious drop for Gingrich numbers are the way polls are taken. If a polling service polls 1000 households, but only 700 households answer the phone, the pollster will keep calling until he reaches 1000 actual people, which may take over 1500 actual calls. This, however, is an imperfect way of obtaining true results. Perhaps voters who don't answer the phone or simply aren't home are more likely to endorse a certain candidate, say, Newt Gingrich?
A significant, reliable stable of Gingrich supporters are said to be of the elderly crowd. It's no secret that elderly people have a spotty history at answering the phone. My grandmother is not home from 8 am until 5 pm every day, and she doesn't even have a job. What's she doing all day? Elderly things. Going to banks, supermarkets, haggling over prices in different stores, and spending time in the library. If a pollster were to call her, said pollster has about a 45 minute window during the actual day to catch my grandmother and record her probable Gingrich support.
Your question now might be, "Well, if pollsters are missing all of the Gingrich support, how do you explain his current drop to 14% from 32%? Why didn't they miss it when he was at 32%?"
The answer is simple- polls are much more frequent now, lending the way toward higher margins of error. There are still a number of polls which have Gingrich in the mid 20's percentage. While Newt may have dipped a bit, the precipitous nature in which the media has portrayed it seems to be a bit overdone.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Friday, December 16, 2011
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Giuliani Rips Romney
One of Joe Biden's well known foibles is his penchant for gaffes. But this same shoot from the hip speak off the cuff approach that often entangles Biden within the media (before he was muzzled by Obama's camp) can produce a humorous, and sometimes effective statement. For instance, his Giuliani attack in 2008.
"There's only three things he mentions in a sentence- a noun, a verb, and 9/11. There's nothing else! There's nothing else! And I mean this sincerely. He's genuinely not qualified to be president." Though Biden didn't win his party's nomination, he certainly and suddenly stripped Giuliani's entire campaign premise down to its naked truth. Suddenly, the courageous former NYC mayor during a turbulent time had immense trouble conveying political depth to voters.
Giuliani is now trying to bring down a similar candidate with similarly striking prose in a recent MSNBC interview on Morning Joe: “I’ve never seen a guy change his position so many times, so fast, on a dime. He figures out there are embryos and changes his mind on abortion. He was pro-mandate for the whole country, then he becomes anti-mandate and takes that page out of his book, and republishes the book."
While technically Giuliani didn't say anything false about Romney, his way with words were of a belittling nature. Has Giuliani "never seen a guy change his position so many times, so fast, on a dime?" I doubt it. Is Romney more of a flip-flopper than John Kerry? Let's ask Giuliani: "It is important to see the contrast in approach between the two men: President Bush, a leader who is willing to stick with difficult decisions even as public opinion shifts, and John Kerry, whose record in elected office suggests a man who changes his position on even important issues."
Additionally, the healthcare mandate issue being taken out of Romney's republished book has already been debunked.
While it's clear that Romney has shifted over the years, it is unsavory to publicly trounce on a candidate of the same party. Romney still has a strong chance of winning the nomination, which simply means Giuliani's remarks are great fodder for Democrats come election time. If Giuliani were more responsible, he would voice his support for Gingrich and quietly pray for a VP offer, instead of such a blatant grab.
"There's only three things he mentions in a sentence- a noun, a verb, and 9/11. There's nothing else! There's nothing else! And I mean this sincerely. He's genuinely not qualified to be president." Though Biden didn't win his party's nomination, he certainly and suddenly stripped Giuliani's entire campaign premise down to its naked truth. Suddenly, the courageous former NYC mayor during a turbulent time had immense trouble conveying political depth to voters.
Giuliani is now trying to bring down a similar candidate with similarly striking prose in a recent MSNBC interview on Morning Joe: “I’ve never seen a guy change his position so many times, so fast, on a dime. He figures out there are embryos and changes his mind on abortion. He was pro-mandate for the whole country, then he becomes anti-mandate and takes that page out of his book, and republishes the book."
While technically Giuliani didn't say anything false about Romney, his way with words were of a belittling nature. Has Giuliani "never seen a guy change his position so many times, so fast, on a dime?" I doubt it. Is Romney more of a flip-flopper than John Kerry? Let's ask Giuliani: "It is important to see the contrast in approach between the two men: President Bush, a leader who is willing to stick with difficult decisions even as public opinion shifts, and John Kerry, whose record in elected office suggests a man who changes his position on even important issues."
Additionally, the healthcare mandate issue being taken out of Romney's republished book has already been debunked.
While it's clear that Romney has shifted over the years, it is unsavory to publicly trounce on a candidate of the same party. Romney still has a strong chance of winning the nomination, which simply means Giuliani's remarks are great fodder for Democrats come election time. If Giuliani were more responsible, he would voice his support for Gingrich and quietly pray for a VP offer, instead of such a blatant grab.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Ron Paul Might Win Iowa
New Iowa polls show Ron Paul in a virtual tie with Newt Gingrich at around 21%. Romney is in 3rd with 16%.
The significance of this poll isn't just the numbers. It's the type of candidate. Out of all of the current 7 candidates, which has the most zealous and enthusiastic backers? Certainly not Romney, and probably not Gingrich. One could argue Santorum, but he's a non factor. Ditto for Perry, Bachmann, and Huntsman.
The answer is Ron Paul. If polls show him within even as much as 4-5 percentage points behind 1st place in Iowa just a day before the election, then he can very well win. Paul has a furious backing from near fanatical supporters, and one can be sure that they will indeed show up to vote on a freezing cold Thursday night.
Remember, polling means calling up some random Iowan and asking who they support. The person might answer Mitt Romney. But come January 3rd, that same Romney supporter might eat too much for dinner, find a great movie on TV, and settle in for the night, with little interest in braving the cold to vote for Romney, the same candidate that he or she supports.
The same cannot be said for Ron Paul supporters.
The significance of this poll isn't just the numbers. It's the type of candidate. Out of all of the current 7 candidates, which has the most zealous and enthusiastic backers? Certainly not Romney, and probably not Gingrich. One could argue Santorum, but he's a non factor. Ditto for Perry, Bachmann, and Huntsman.
The answer is Ron Paul. If polls show him within even as much as 4-5 percentage points behind 1st place in Iowa just a day before the election, then he can very well win. Paul has a furious backing from near fanatical supporters, and one can be sure that they will indeed show up to vote on a freezing cold Thursday night.
Remember, polling means calling up some random Iowan and asking who they support. The person might answer Mitt Romney. But come January 3rd, that same Romney supporter might eat too much for dinner, find a great movie on TV, and settle in for the night, with little interest in braving the cold to vote for Romney, the same candidate that he or she supports.
The same cannot be said for Ron Paul supporters.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Trump Pulls Out of Debate
"The Republican Party candidates (other than Gingrich) are very concerned that sometime after the final episode of The Apprentice in May,
when the equal time provisions are no longer applicable to me, I will
announce my candidacy for President of the United States as an
Independent and that, unless I conclusively agree not to run as an
Independent, they will not agree to attend or be a part of the Newsmax
debate scheduled for December 27, 2011."
Monday, December 12, 2011
Analyzing the GOP Candidates' Overall Debate Performances
The GOP debates for the 2012 nomination might be the most memorable run of political theater that the general American public has ever seen, up close and personal. The cast of characters and their performances are discussed below:
Gingrich: Professorial, unafraid of the moderators, sliiiightly bombastic with his facts, but the strongest of the bunch. He also leads the pack in audience applause without pandering to said audiences.
Romney: The word flawless has been bandied about for Mitt's debate performances, but flawless is no longer a compliment. Now that Gingrich's lead has cemented, flawless means that Romney isn't screwing up, but he isn't regaining any critical ground. His attacks on Gingrich are like playing tennis against a brick wall; Romney simply can't penetrate Newt's breadth of knowledge and authoritative way with words. A key moment was Romney saying that Gingrich was too reckless when he called the Palestinians "an invented people". Romney was probably right, but Gingrich came back by invoking Reagan and his evil empire Russia remark, and saying that "he is not afraid to tell the truth". Point Gingrich. And finally, it's ridiculous that Mitt still lets Rick Perry get under his skin.
Santorum: Always holds his own, never loses an argument, but much like Ron Paul, he has a ceiling. Santorum's views represent too narrow a slice of American citizenry, thus preventing his solid debate performances from crystallizing into something material.
Huntsman: Considered by many to be the best true candidate, Huntsman never evokes much enthusiasm with his debate performances. Maybe it's because he looks like a wimp who went to summer science camp at the urging of his billionaire father? His debate performances simply don't resonate with average Joe citizens. It's a shame because he is the only conservative to favor bringing home the troops, which is what 68% of Americans favor. Would it kill the GOP to elect an electable candidate?
Perry: Ever since his first huge debate gaffe (struggling to put together a coherent sentence on Pakistan), Perry has yet to and will not ever recover. His campaign is toxic and has zero chance at revival. Why? Because at each debate, he simply comes off as a stuttering fool. He does make a fair point when he says that the President is Commander in Chief and not Debater in Chief, but it doesn't stop him from looking like the bumbling second coming of George Bush on the TV. He did score a nice attack when he said "If you cheat on your wife, you'll cheat on your business partner." However, that line would have been more effective if it came from Romney or Paul.
Bachmann: There have been murmurs of Bachmann stealthily stirring up something of a second coming of sorts in Iowa. As Romney and Paul run anti-Gingrich ads in Iowa, ironically enough, Bachmann gains the most, because Gingrich dropouts will not go to Romney or Paul, but rather to Bachmann, since she is the true evangelical and more importantly, went head to head with Gingrich in the last two debates. Unfortunately, she contains tinges of the toxicity that the Perry and Santorum campaigns have; too conservative, too radical, and sometimes too unintelligent.
Paul: The most intriguing candidate. No one ever defeats him in an argument during live debates, despite his suit which never fits him (CAN SOMEONE GET THIS MAN A TAILOR??) Paul's greatest debate moment may have come in the recent ABC event from Saturday night, when he was asked by the sneaky George Stephonopolous about his recent anti-Gingrich ads. Paul claimed that Gingirch was receiving tax payer money from Fannie Mae. Gingirch didn't like that much. Paul's arguments to bring every soldier home and cut excessive spending always resonates with voters, and as the Iowa caucus nears, Paul could emerge as a dark horse that debate-watchers will go to, as Romney and Gingrich cancel each other out. The bigger problem with Paul is that the GOP elite will never ever endorse him, making it nearly impossible for him to ever land nomination.
In upcoming debates, there are a few things that need to happen. Romney needs to stop staring at opponents while they speak: it is very creepy. Huntsman needs to stop being so diplomatic (he was once asked if he accused Romney of pandering on the idea of a trade war with China; Huntsman didn't back down, but he did not go for the jugular, as he should have). Bachmann created a catchy little jingo with "Newt Romney", but the "Win Win Win" idea was awful and too transparent a ploy to jump on the long derailed "9-9-9" train. Santorum needs to stop bashing gay people and stop talking about his family values. It hasn't worked until now, why will it work in the future? Perry has no hope, but his needling of Romney is great theater and I hope he keeps it up. Actually, I know he will keep at it. And finally, Newt "the ticking time bomb" Gingrich needs to maintain composure and continue batting away all the feeble attacks until he secures the nomination.
Gingrich: Professorial, unafraid of the moderators, sliiiightly bombastic with his facts, but the strongest of the bunch. He also leads the pack in audience applause without pandering to said audiences.
Romney: The word flawless has been bandied about for Mitt's debate performances, but flawless is no longer a compliment. Now that Gingrich's lead has cemented, flawless means that Romney isn't screwing up, but he isn't regaining any critical ground. His attacks on Gingrich are like playing tennis against a brick wall; Romney simply can't penetrate Newt's breadth of knowledge and authoritative way with words. A key moment was Romney saying that Gingrich was too reckless when he called the Palestinians "an invented people". Romney was probably right, but Gingrich came back by invoking Reagan and his evil empire Russia remark, and saying that "he is not afraid to tell the truth". Point Gingrich. And finally, it's ridiculous that Mitt still lets Rick Perry get under his skin.
Santorum: Always holds his own, never loses an argument, but much like Ron Paul, he has a ceiling. Santorum's views represent too narrow a slice of American citizenry, thus preventing his solid debate performances from crystallizing into something material.
Huntsman: Considered by many to be the best true candidate, Huntsman never evokes much enthusiasm with his debate performances. Maybe it's because he looks like a wimp who went to summer science camp at the urging of his billionaire father? His debate performances simply don't resonate with average Joe citizens. It's a shame because he is the only conservative to favor bringing home the troops, which is what 68% of Americans favor. Would it kill the GOP to elect an electable candidate?
Perry: Ever since his first huge debate gaffe (struggling to put together a coherent sentence on Pakistan), Perry has yet to and will not ever recover. His campaign is toxic and has zero chance at revival. Why? Because at each debate, he simply comes off as a stuttering fool. He does make a fair point when he says that the President is Commander in Chief and not Debater in Chief, but it doesn't stop him from looking like the bumbling second coming of George Bush on the TV. He did score a nice attack when he said "If you cheat on your wife, you'll cheat on your business partner." However, that line would have been more effective if it came from Romney or Paul.
Bachmann: There have been murmurs of Bachmann stealthily stirring up something of a second coming of sorts in Iowa. As Romney and Paul run anti-Gingrich ads in Iowa, ironically enough, Bachmann gains the most, because Gingrich dropouts will not go to Romney or Paul, but rather to Bachmann, since she is the true evangelical and more importantly, went head to head with Gingrich in the last two debates. Unfortunately, she contains tinges of the toxicity that the Perry and Santorum campaigns have; too conservative, too radical, and sometimes too unintelligent.
Paul: The most intriguing candidate. No one ever defeats him in an argument during live debates, despite his suit which never fits him (CAN SOMEONE GET THIS MAN A TAILOR??) Paul's greatest debate moment may have come in the recent ABC event from Saturday night, when he was asked by the sneaky George Stephonopolous about his recent anti-Gingrich ads. Paul claimed that Gingirch was receiving tax payer money from Fannie Mae. Gingirch didn't like that much. Paul's arguments to bring every soldier home and cut excessive spending always resonates with voters, and as the Iowa caucus nears, Paul could emerge as a dark horse that debate-watchers will go to, as Romney and Gingrich cancel each other out. The bigger problem with Paul is that the GOP elite will never ever endorse him, making it nearly impossible for him to ever land nomination.
In upcoming debates, there are a few things that need to happen. Romney needs to stop staring at opponents while they speak: it is very creepy. Huntsman needs to stop being so diplomatic (he was once asked if he accused Romney of pandering on the idea of a trade war with China; Huntsman didn't back down, but he did not go for the jugular, as he should have). Bachmann created a catchy little jingo with "Newt Romney", but the "Win Win Win" idea was awful and too transparent a ploy to jump on the long derailed "9-9-9" train. Santorum needs to stop bashing gay people and stop talking about his family values. It hasn't worked until now, why will it work in the future? Perry has no hope, but his needling of Romney is great theater and I hope he keeps it up. Actually, I know he will keep at it. And finally, Newt "the ticking time bomb" Gingrich needs to maintain composure and continue batting away all the feeble attacks until he secures the nomination.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, & Mitt Romney During the ABC GOP December 10th Debate
 |
| Picture: Associated Press |
Hunstman Not Invited To Iowa Debate
Jon Hunstman was not invited to the recent Iowa GOP debate. Why? The official reason was that his poll numbers in the state were too low (2%). But the real reason is because he hasn't campaigned in Iowa at all, instead, choosing to focus on New Hampshire.
Hunstman was essentially punished for not putting any resources into Iowa, which is totally unfair. He is polling at 10% in New Hampshire, has been in nearly every debate thus far, and has a huge SuperPAC behind his back. Iowans need to relax.
Hunstman does have an upcoming 1 on 1 "Lincoln-Douglas" style debate against frontrunner Newt Gingrich in the work for late December.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Ron Paul is Honest but Harsh and Possibly a Complete Idiot
Check out this very recent Ron Paul quote:
“Think of what happened after 9/11, the minute before there was any assessment, there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq, and so the war drums beat. That’s exactly what they’re doing now with Iran.”
Even if that were true, YOU DON'T SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT. Admitting that your party's previous administration was "gleeful" after 9/11? Are you insane? How in the world do you expect to gain traction and support among the Republican elite/faithful?
The problem with Ron Paul is that he strays too far. I have no problem with his wanting to cut all foreign aid or ridding of the Fed Reserve. Those are extreme positions, sure, but he has his right to express and support them.
But to claim an administration is happy over the death of 3000 civilians? Sure, 9/11 provided enough of a reason to invade Afghanistan and ultimately Iraq, but it doesn't mean anyone was gleeful over it. Therein lies the issue with Ron Paul's foolish assumption: he has no idea what Bush administration officials were feeling in their hearts. He can connect the dots and claim that 9/11 allowed us to invade two countries. We all know that. But to claim officials were gleeful? That is just idiotic.
Also makes one wonder how Paul can ever expect to crack his "ceiling"of 10-12% of support in polls. With undermining statements like the one he just made, Paul will ensure that he stays in Congress until he dies, living in Texas under Rick Perry. Oh well...
“Think of what happened after 9/11, the minute before there was any assessment, there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq, and so the war drums beat. That’s exactly what they’re doing now with Iran.”
Even if that were true, YOU DON'T SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT. Admitting that your party's previous administration was "gleeful" after 9/11? Are you insane? How in the world do you expect to gain traction and support among the Republican elite/faithful?
The problem with Ron Paul is that he strays too far. I have no problem with his wanting to cut all foreign aid or ridding of the Fed Reserve. Those are extreme positions, sure, but he has his right to express and support them.
But to claim an administration is happy over the death of 3000 civilians? Sure, 9/11 provided enough of a reason to invade Afghanistan and ultimately Iraq, but it doesn't mean anyone was gleeful over it. Therein lies the issue with Ron Paul's foolish assumption: he has no idea what Bush administration officials were feeling in their hearts. He can connect the dots and claim that 9/11 allowed us to invade two countries. We all know that. But to claim officials were gleeful? That is just idiotic.
Also makes one wonder how Paul can ever expect to crack his "ceiling"of 10-12% of support in polls. With undermining statements like the one he just made, Paul will ensure that he stays in Congress until he dies, living in Texas under Rick Perry. Oh well...
Santorum Blasts Trump Debate Declinees
Santorum, the champion of ethics, morals, and family values, has accepted the invitation to a debate which seems to be an awkward meeting of Gingrich, Trump, and now Santorum.
Every other Republican nominee has declined invites, most recently Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann. Santorum, in accordance with his strong moral backbone, would be the first candidate to decline such a debate, in my opinion.
But let's be practical for a second. Santorum needs all the help he can get, and a Trump debate in Iowa just a week before the Caucus is too much for Santorum to pass up. Trump is ratings gold, and even if it ends up being Santorum and Gingrich going back and forth for two hours- that will be more face time for Santorum than he's gotten this entire campaign. Essentially, he has no choice.
That is why it is probably a mistake for back of the pack candidates like Bachmann, Hunstman, and even Perry to turn down this Trump debate. It's a great opportunity to go head to head with frontrunner Newt Gingrich. Since when did morals become so valuable to candidates??
Every other Republican nominee has declined invites, most recently Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann. Santorum, in accordance with his strong moral backbone, would be the first candidate to decline such a debate, in my opinion.
But let's be practical for a second. Santorum needs all the help he can get, and a Trump debate in Iowa just a week before the Caucus is too much for Santorum to pass up. Trump is ratings gold, and even if it ends up being Santorum and Gingrich going back and forth for two hours- that will be more face time for Santorum than he's gotten this entire campaign. Essentially, he has no choice.
That is why it is probably a mistake for back of the pack candidates like Bachmann, Hunstman, and even Perry to turn down this Trump debate. It's a great opportunity to go head to head with frontrunner Newt Gingrich. Since when did morals become so valuable to candidates??
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Romney in Freefall Mode? Gingrich Lead Cementing
For every fool who kept insisting that Gingrich's surge was nothing compared to Romney's strong "infrastructure", well, how long is that ridiculous argument going to last? Gingrich has emerged as the clear frontrunner in what is now a legitimate two man race, to which Romney has to play catch up.
Sure, Romney has more offices than Gingrich and more staff. But a poll is a poll is a poll. 28% in Iowa? 35% in South Carolina? Closing the gap in sacred New Hampshire? And a staggering 44% in Florida! Gingrich is simply bludgeoning Romney, with or without offices. And with these strong poll numbers comes plenty of cash, as Gingrich made more in the last month then he had in the entire campaign. (Not including Fannie Mae money. Jooooking!)
It is clear that the media is not too enthralled with the prospect of a Gingrich nomination. Romney is a media favorite: polished, charming, handsome, and gracious (unless the questions get tricky). Gingrich is a media-hater, and possesses a better than thou outlook which turns off the media elite.
If Gingrich can hang onto his poll numbers, then he it looks to be nearly a sure thing in Iowa. In fact, other than N.H., Gingirch has substantial leads.
Many "experts" keep maintaining that Gingrich will implode soon enough, and that "when he's doing well, he's not doing well." I completely disagree. That argument is stale. That argument is very 1994. It is 2011- Gingrich has been around the block enough times to realize that maintaining his temperament is the key to holding it together. His nascent rise can be maintained- and will be- because Gingrich really is smarter than everyone else. At least this time around.
Sure, Romney has more offices than Gingrich and more staff. But a poll is a poll is a poll. 28% in Iowa? 35% in South Carolina? Closing the gap in sacred New Hampshire? And a staggering 44% in Florida! Gingrich is simply bludgeoning Romney, with or without offices. And with these strong poll numbers comes plenty of cash, as Gingrich made more in the last month then he had in the entire campaign. (Not including Fannie Mae money. Jooooking!)
It is clear that the media is not too enthralled with the prospect of a Gingrich nomination. Romney is a media favorite: polished, charming, handsome, and gracious (unless the questions get tricky). Gingrich is a media-hater, and possesses a better than thou outlook which turns off the media elite.
If Gingrich can hang onto his poll numbers, then he it looks to be nearly a sure thing in Iowa. In fact, other than N.H., Gingirch has substantial leads.
Many "experts" keep maintaining that Gingrich will implode soon enough, and that "when he's doing well, he's not doing well." I completely disagree. That argument is stale. That argument is very 1994. It is 2011- Gingrich has been around the block enough times to realize that maintaining his temperament is the key to holding it together. His nascent rise can be maintained- and will be- because Gingrich really is smarter than everyone else. At least this time around.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Does Cain's Endorsement Matter?
With Cain about to publicly endorse Newt Gingrich, one has to wonder. Does it help? And, could it even be a liability?
The first thing is the liability issue. Cain's poll numbers dropped from a high of 26% to 8.8% last week at the time of his campaign suspension. Although that 8.8 was something, it should not be confused as necessarily stronger than Santorum's 6% and Huntsman's 4%.
Cain was a sinking ship, and his momentum was spiraling downhill. I'd take a healthy 4% from Hunstman which is on the slight and steady upswing than I would a toxic 8.8% from a dreadful candidate who suspended his campaign just to stop the bleeding.
So no, I don't think Cain's "vaunted" endorsement matters much. I think Cainanites are going to join whomever they want, regardless of where Cain points to. For instance, if Cain were to endorse Romney, no one would follow him. The 8.8% are going to a combination of Gingrich or Santorum.
The next question is if Cain's endorsement is a liability. Think Al Gore famously refusing Bill Clinton's campaigning help- though he ultimately regretted it. Clinton, though dogged by extramarital activities, was actually an intelligent, knowledgeable, and popular politician. Cain shares the extramarital activities, but was clueless in terms of policy, and his popularity is extremely divisive. While his endorsement probably isn't a liability, I don't think it carries any weight.
The first thing is the liability issue. Cain's poll numbers dropped from a high of 26% to 8.8% last week at the time of his campaign suspension. Although that 8.8 was something, it should not be confused as necessarily stronger than Santorum's 6% and Huntsman's 4%.
Cain was a sinking ship, and his momentum was spiraling downhill. I'd take a healthy 4% from Hunstman which is on the slight and steady upswing than I would a toxic 8.8% from a dreadful candidate who suspended his campaign just to stop the bleeding.
So no, I don't think Cain's "vaunted" endorsement matters much. I think Cainanites are going to join whomever they want, regardless of where Cain points to. For instance, if Cain were to endorse Romney, no one would follow him. The 8.8% are going to a combination of Gingrich or Santorum.
The next question is if Cain's endorsement is a liability. Think Al Gore famously refusing Bill Clinton's campaigning help- though he ultimately regretted it. Clinton, though dogged by extramarital activities, was actually an intelligent, knowledgeable, and popular politician. Cain shares the extramarital activities, but was clueless in terms of policy, and his popularity is extremely divisive. While his endorsement probably isn't a liability, I don't think it carries any weight.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Ron Paul versus Donald Trump
Donald Trump is hosting a debate later this month, and already Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul have both publicly declined to partake. The gloves have come off, metaphorically speaking:
Left Hook: The selection of a reality television personality to host a presidential debate that voters nationwide will be watching is beneath the office of the Presidency and flies in the face of that office’s history and dignity.
Body Blow: Ron Paul has a zero chance of winning either the nomination or the presidency.
Illegal Head Butt: My poll numbers were substantially higher than any of his poll numbers, at any time.
It is known that these two have a history of animosity, in which fans were flamed when Trump crapped all over Paul at the time that he considering jumping into the GOP race. Paul is no sucker, and wouldn't dare enter in a debate moderated by an enemy.
Gingrich is the only GOP candidate to officially accept his invitation to the debate. Who knows, maybe now that Cain, Huntsman and Paul are out, Gary Johnson and Buddy Roemer may get an invite.
 |
| Swing and a miss! |
Ron Paul:
Left Hook: The selection of a reality television personality to host a presidential debate that voters nationwide will be watching is beneath the office of the Presidency and flies in the face of that office’s history and dignity.
Body Blow: Ron Paul has a zero chance of winning either the nomination or the presidency.
Illegal Head Butt: My poll numbers were substantially higher than any of his poll numbers, at any time.
Below the Belt Punch: Few people take Ron Paul seriously and many of his
views and presentation make him a clown-like candidate.
Throwing a Stool into the ring: I
am glad he and Jon Huntsman, who has inconsequential poll numbers or a
chance of winning, will not be attending the debate and wasting the time
of the viewers who are trying very hard to make a very important
decision.
Gingrich is the only GOP candidate to officially accept his invitation to the debate. Who knows, maybe now that Cain, Huntsman and Paul are out, Gary Johnson and Buddy Roemer may get an invite.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Oh Huntsman. Politics is About Momentum.
Jon Hunstman, thanks to his billionaire daddy, has moved from 8 to 12% in New Hampshire. Assuming he keeps moving upward, Huntsman could creep into a respectable 3rd place behind Romney and Gingrich in the 1.3 million person state.
But what about that ol' Iowa? Hunstman doesn't even register 1 percentage point there, which risks him being withheld from the upcoming Iowa debate. He's going all in in NH, which he hopes will carry over into South Carolina.
The problem with ignoring Iowa, if you ask Rudy Giuliani , is that it makes you dead on arrival in the next state. Giuliani spent ALL of his campaign money in Florida, and was polling well there up until the Iowa caucus. But his horrendous Iowa performance carried over into NH, which then completely marred his Florida primary and caused him to pull out just 24 hours after Florida.
Huntsman seems to think that by ignoring Iowa, he can gain the upper hand in NH. He recently boasted of hosting his 100th event of the year in NH. Is that even a good thing?
Politics is all about momentum. A presidential contender cannot be taken seriously if he or she registers less than 1% in the first voter tally. The poor momentum from Iowa will carry over and hurt Huntsman afterward. Would it kill the guy to at least make a speech there??
But what about that ol' Iowa? Hunstman doesn't even register 1 percentage point there, which risks him being withheld from the upcoming Iowa debate. He's going all in in NH, which he hopes will carry over into South Carolina.
The problem with ignoring Iowa, if you ask Rudy Giuliani , is that it makes you dead on arrival in the next state. Giuliani spent ALL of his campaign money in Florida, and was polling well there up until the Iowa caucus. But his horrendous Iowa performance carried over into NH, which then completely marred his Florida primary and caused him to pull out just 24 hours after Florida.
Huntsman seems to think that by ignoring Iowa, he can gain the upper hand in NH. He recently boasted of hosting his 100th event of the year in NH. Is that even a good thing?
Politics is all about momentum. A presidential contender cannot be taken seriously if he or she registers less than 1% in the first voter tally. The poor momentum from Iowa will carry over and hurt Huntsman afterward. Would it kill the guy to at least make a speech there??
Cain Dead in the Water
The obvious, interesting thing about Cain's campaign reassessment is that it comes in the wake of an affair, and not after multiple sexual harassment murmurings. That Cain was able to weather sexual harassment claims but not reports of adultery says one of two things:
His wife of 43 years, Gloria Cain, probably had enough. I wouldn't be shocked if she gave him an ultimatum to either drop out and work on their marriage, or stay in the race and face divorce.
The other possibility is that donors probably dried up. After the sexual harassment charges, followed by the Libya fiasco, and an equally horrendous performance in the foreign policy debate, there was probably no money left in Cain 2012's Paypal account. Who in their right mind would donate to a dead in the water campaign?
Which leads to the next question. How the hell does Cain still have 15% of the vote? Who are these people. Sure, a month ago it was okay to vote for Cain. And yes, even with the tawdry charges brought against him, it was fair to look the other way. But when Cain seemed to have NO IDEA what was going on in Libya, and with ridiculously generic answers in the foreign policy debates, who could vote for this guy?
Additionally, his infamous 9-9-9 tax plan was said to have come from Sim City 2000. And now that I think about it, it rings true: Sim City always started the city off with 9% taxes across the board, which for the most part, generally worked well for my cities. Maybe Cain was on to something after all.
His wife of 43 years, Gloria Cain, probably had enough. I wouldn't be shocked if she gave him an ultimatum to either drop out and work on their marriage, or stay in the race and face divorce.
The other possibility is that donors probably dried up. After the sexual harassment charges, followed by the Libya fiasco, and an equally horrendous performance in the foreign policy debate, there was probably no money left in Cain 2012's Paypal account. Who in their right mind would donate to a dead in the water campaign?
Which leads to the next question. How the hell does Cain still have 15% of the vote? Who are these people. Sure, a month ago it was okay to vote for Cain. And yes, even with the tawdry charges brought against him, it was fair to look the other way. But when Cain seemed to have NO IDEA what was going on in Libya, and with ridiculously generic answers in the foreign policy debates, who could vote for this guy?
Additionally, his infamous 9-9-9 tax plan was said to have come from Sim City 2000. And now that I think about it, it rings true: Sim City always started the city off with 9% taxes across the board, which for the most part, generally worked well for my cities. Maybe Cain was on to something after all.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)