One of our regular commenters, Matt “MWS” wrote on another thread (emphasis added):
… There are three brackets in this tourney. The Not Mitt bracket is Santorum, Perry, Bachmann, and Newt. The Not Not Mitt bracket is Mitt and J-Hunt. Paul is his own bracket, and not really in the Tourney.
So naturally, all the Not Mitt candidates have to eliminate each other to advance to the finals. J-Hunt, however, is the only one who has to eliminate Mitt to advance to the finals. But nobody’s really paying attention to him.
I suspect Iowa will pretty well settle the Not Mitt bracket. Then you will see more direct attacks on Mitt. If the Not Mitt bracket is still muddled after Iowa, that’s definitely good for Romney. In that case, South Carolina will settle the Not Mitt bracket.
The Not Not Mitt bracket will be settled in New Hampshire. Jon is almost out of time. He pretty well needs a hail mary, a two point conversion, an on-side kick, and a field goal to win that- all in the last two minutes.
Barring a last second Mitt Meltdown, Romney appears to have New Hampshire well and comfortably in the bag thus eliminating Huntsman. However, looking at the last minute Iowa polls we’ve been seeing, it is possible that Santorum, Perry, and Newt could end up being in a virtual three-way tie next Tuesday. Michele Bachmann would be out, but what then?
Santorum is handicapped by having little money and even less organization outside of Iowa. If he wants to continue past Iowa, nothing short of a first place finish in the Not Mitt race there will do. His latest surge suggests he might just do it. Unfortunately, he is going to have to do far better than just finishing ahead of Perry and Gingrich if he wants the Not Mitt bracket all to himself. He is going to have to crush the other two. Perry has money and organization with which to continue. Newt might not have large amounts of money and much of an organization, but he currently has a nice double digit lead in South Carolina. He’s not going to give that up without a fight. Nothing short of a solid repudiation by the Iowan voters would induce Perry and Newt to concede the field to Santorum after Iowa, and the latest polling doesn’t support that scenario at all.
So expect at least two, probably even three Not Mitts to continue on to South Carolina. The state should then determine the final outcome of the Not Mitt bracket, but by then it might be too late. With the split in the Not Mitt vote, it’s very possible that Romney might sweep the first three contests entirely. If he manages to do that, trying to deny him the nomination would become a near Herculean task.
December 30th, 2011 at 5:26 pm
Problem: even if there’s a clear not-Mitt after Iowa, and this not-Mitt is inclined to lay into Romney, having won his own bracket, the not-Mitt still needs the resources to actually make the case. Newt Gingrich didn’t adopt a “no-attack ads” strategy because he was just terribly, terribly virtuous. He adopted a “no attack ads” strategy because it’s one thing to be smashed over the head with a Super PAC affiliated with a candidate; it’s another thing entirely to be smashed over the head by the candidate himself. If Newt launched 600k worth of negatives ads attacking Romney, Mitt has carte blanche to launch back with 3 million worth of negatives ads attacking Newt. It’s a lose/lose. The not-Romney is going to want to make a sustained, visible case against nominating Romney- but he’s highly unlikely to be able to do so. Even a strong 3rd in Iowa won’t get Santorum anywhere near the resources he’ll need to compete in South Carolina or Florida- not when he’ll be essentially forced to abandon NH.
December 30th, 2011 at 5:33 pm
Oh gosh … the last thing MWS needs is a bigger head.
December 30th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
I agree with what someone posted before: I would love for Romney to win the nomination without winning South Carolina. Just so South Carolina can stop assuming they’re so bloody important.
December 30th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
So funny how things have changed so much from 4 years ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soHAOVZzXtA&feature=youtube
December 30th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
A few problems with that theory.
1) Romney was never supposed to do well in Iowa. Everyone knew he was discounting the state and while his Super PAC was very prominent, mostly going after Newt, Romney has spent less time in the state than every candidate save Huntsman. If he does well, it diminishes all the not Romneys even further and none of them can really afford it.
2) Almost all of the not Romneys are either low on funds or already in debt. Santorum has been touring the state in a borrowed pickup and Perry’s fundraising has dried up thanks to his debate performances. Newt raised a few bucks but much of that will go to pay off his debt.
3) None of them have much of an organization going forward. Most of them aren’t prepared at all to compete in NH where Romney has a commanding lead and will probably take a pass and go straight to SC. Romney has been quietly building his organization there and if past is any prologue he will continue to add. By the time SC rolls around at the end of January Romney will have even more resources and a better organization not too mention two very strong performances if not two wins.
4) Newt is the only candidate who polls in double digits besides Romney, both of them are in the mid-20s, and again, none of them have any real organization in the state while Romney is building a formidable one.
5) Contra the pundits, its now apparent that Romney’s floor was the mid-20s, not his ceiling. He is getting stronger now as people are starting to get serious about picking a candidate to go up against Obama. His negatives are built in and have been known for years but the not Romneys are really getting their first look and with the exception of Santorum none of them are viewed very positively right now outside Iowa. Bachmann is crashing. Newt had a rise, crash, a rise and a crash again. I don’t see him getting a third look of any consequence. Perry has given the impression he’s not ready for prime time and he keeps doing it again and again. Huntsman was always a vanity candidate and even after months of basically living in NH with almost no opposition he will be lucky to get a distant 3rd. Santorum is doing well in Iowa right now but nationally he barely is a blip on the radar.
6) That leaves Ron Paul. Romney has the good fortune of being not Paul. There is no way, none, that Paul will ever be the Republican candidate.
It’s certainly possible that Romney does well in Iowa and doesn’t move to quickly lock this thing up but its not likely.
December 30th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
Iowa SHOULD NOT decide anything, and it is ridiculous how the media hypes this caucus and its importance…which is attended by a small minority of voters and as such is easily manipulated by agenda driven interest groups.
On top of that, no delegates are awarded for the caucus outcomes…that’s right..zero! Who won last time? Huckabee? Well, all of Iowa’s delegates went for McCain in 2008. The caucus is the first step in nominating delegates to the county conventions, from there to the state convention and from there on to the national convention, this year to be held in Florida.
The only thing more meaningless is the Ames Straw Poll in August, which is a vote buying fund raiser for the state party and means LESS THAN nothing (see: Michele Bachmann)
As an Iowan and a political junky, I enjoy all the attention we receive from the candidates, and it’s cool to get to meet them and all, but most people in this state HATE the political season and do not participate in the caucus.
No one is going to win or lose anything next Tuesday, except in the spin from the media…
But watching the fate of our nation decided (or at least so strongly influenced) by 30,000 or 40,000 Iowans…most of whom you would not consult for ANYTHING, is troubling.
December 30th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
Obviously if Romney wins outright, even by a point, that would be huge for him and knowk everyone back for a ten yard loss, no matter how they finish.
If Paul finishes 1 or 2, it’s
If It’s Romney/
December 30th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
6
Maybe the state should be a primary instead of a caucus.
As for the delegates, they only went to McCain in the end because Huckabee released his delegates.
December 30th, 2011 at 5:56 pm
8. You are just wrong about Huckabee “releasing” his delegates…the Iowa delegates are not tied to ANY candidate, and are not chosen until months AFTER the caucus, when a nominee is usually apparent.
Do not doubt me on Iowa politics, dude.
December 30th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
What really becomes interesting is if Iowa makes Santorum the clear NotRomney. That puts Republican primary voters in an interesting position in SC and FL and elsewhere. They can choose between:
1) The guy whose religion they view as a perversion of True Christianity, who they just KNOW is a Rockefeller Republican, and who embraces modest but conventionally conservative policies.
2) The guy whose religion they view as a counterfeit of True Christianity, who is broke, has no organization, and comes across as whiny, and who believes in self-sacrifice and Rust Belt economics instead of getting rich and Red State economics.
3) Ron Paul.
I’m not so sure Santorum wins that sort of race. I think Jindal, Ryan, Jeb, etc, would win that race in a walk. But Santorum will have his own ideological and identity problems with conservatives, and he’s got no money, and he’s a bit of a jerk to boot.
December 30th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
I agree that there is a very large chance that Romney wins quickly and decisively. He certainly has the best chance at winning the nomination, no denying that. However, he might not sweep it so cleanly. If the Not-Mitt vote can coalesce quickly, possibly around Santorum, there could be a huge push for him that could cut into Romney’s support. When the Not-Mitts unify, it can be very formidable and can fundraise and organize very quickly (see: Perry, Rick September 2011). That means that the Not-Mitt and Mitt are fighting for the mainstream GOP voters while Paul is fighting for fringe (I do realize that I am on the fringe of the current Republican party) and independent voters. This could result in a very long threeway contest that lasts until the convention. It could get very bloody, very fast. I still think that Mitt is most likely to win in that situation.
We have a very interesting couple of months ahead of us.
*grabs popcorn*
P.S: Is it wrong that I’m more excited for January 3rd than January 1st? XD
December 30th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
teledude Says:
“You are just wrong about Huckabee “releasing” his delegates…the Iowa delegates are not tied to ANY candidate, and are not chosen until months AFTER the caucus, when a nominee is usually apparent.
Do not doubt me on Iowa politics, dude.”
IMO, I think MassCon doubts you on everything.
December 30th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
Teledude, sorry, but we all know full well that if Palin was running and winning in Iowa, you would be touting the state for all its worth.
If Romney wins Iowa, Romney will win New Hampshire, and Romney will probably win South Carolina. etc.
If Paul wins Iowa, Romney will win New Hampshire, and Romney will probably win South Carolina. etc.
If Santorum wins Iowa, Romney will win New Hampshire, South Carolina is up for grabs, but Santorum is unlikely to have the money to compete on the big state in Florida, etc. while undergoing serious scrutiny for the first time.
Perry will not win Iowa. Bachmann will not win Iowa. Gingrich will not win Iowa. Huntsman will not win Iowa.
December 30th, 2011 at 6:03 pm
Tele was correct about the delegates being unbound.
December 30th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
Just thought of something else.
What if the Not-Mitts can’t find a candidate? That could mean that if Paul falls in Iowa and the Not-Mitts are still searching by NH, then J-Hunt could place second in NH (due to an underwelming Paul Iowa and a squabbling Not-Mitt base). Huntsman is loved by the media, so I could see a strong McCain style push after NH. SC really doesn’t like Mitt, and if the Not-Mitts can’t find someone, Huntsman could come up from behind and overtake them in SC. /baselessbutfun speculation
December 30th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
It would’ve been fun to have been in on this conference call from Newt.
http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2011/12/30/only-on-brody-file-gingrichs-altar-call-to-iowa-pastors.aspx
December 30th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
6 and 14
But, isn’t that because by the time the convention came around, Huck was essentially gone (or hopeless)?
At the convention, in a close race, I’ve got to believe that Iowa’s delegates count for the candidate who won them.
December 30th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
17
Exactly. Bingo.
December 30th, 2011 at 6:14 pm
Teledude,
Are you really from Iowa? If so, can you help answer something for me. I was in a debate with someone when I mentioned that Sarah Palin has a bigger following in Iowa than Ron Paul. Am I right?
December 30th, 2011 at 6:18 pm
At this point, I beleive MassCon is right about two things. First, that Romney will be the nominee. And second that Christie will be his running mate. I say that cause everywhere I see Romney now in the news, I see Christie right behind him. And also, Christie will be the ultimate attack dog against Obama while Mitt plays it cool in the general.
December 30th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
17. It never happens. McCain came in 4th in the Iowa caucus. He got 100% of our delegates.
In a close race the delegates are free to support whoever they want. Period. There is no way, no mechanism, to “allocate” delegates to certain candidates, by percentage or number of votes.
They would not get together and decide, okay Romney got 30% and Paul got 26% and Newt got 20% so you, you and you have to vote for Romney, and you and you have to vote Paul and I will vote Gingrich. Not how it works – at all.
If I wanted to be a delegate, I could go to Florida (assuming I cleared all the stages, that takes a little money and politicking on it’s own) I could go to Florida and vote for Governor Palin.
Iowa Caucus = a meaningless popularity contest that has no bearing on who wins the nomination, other than media hype.
December 30th, 2011 at 6:27 pm
This was worth a front page? LOL.
December 30th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
Santorum could do well in IA. He’s spent all year there; the pastors are trying to coalesce people around him. However, he has no money and no organization outside of IA. He can skip over NH, but he would have to start gaining a bunch of mo (money and momentum) immediately!!!
Who outside of IA even knows him? Who would start getting on his bandwagon and giving him tons of cash? Who would endorse him (besides Glenn Beck, who previously endorsed Bachmann-twice)?
Obama came out of nowhere, but what he had going for him is the stuff of legend. What does Santorum actually have besides not being Romney? Are enough people going to be so vehement against Romney they will begin donating to Santorum? Volunteering? Going bonkers? In a hurry? Before he’s even vetted, given the history of the ABRs?
And besides, Romney’s negatives are not that high. Sure, people have wanted someone different than Romney, but…….they have exhausted their options. Mitt is looking better and better.
Whatever happens in IA won’t matter until SC and FL. Romney may or may not do well in SC, but after that……Who else is there?
December 30th, 2011 at 6:29 pm
20
Wait, I didn’t say Christie will be Mitt’s running mate, did I? I think it’s possible, but I don’t think I said he will definitively.
December 30th, 2011 at 6:29 pm
20. Ozzy,
I don’t think I could say that.
She did have a lot of support early on, but as time went on and other candidates started campaigning, it was really hard to find people still willing to back her.
It would be different if she were an announced candidate. We had the beginnings of a mighty army, but we needed a commander, and she never stepped forward.
December 30th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
21.
>>Iowa Caucus = a meaningless popularity contest that has no bearing on who wins the nomination, other than media hype.
You say that like it means nothing. Forget the delegates, they are meaningless in this equation. It’s all about the media hype and how it helps shape the race.
Huck was basically a second tier candidate until he caught fire in Iowa and walked away with a convincing lead. Romney had gone all in and his second place finish where he got 25% of the vote was not only seen as a serious loss but pretty much put his campaign into a slow decline that he never recovered from. Huck went on to be a very competitive candidate even with little money and organization (although far more than virtually every not Romney this cycle).
Because of its first in the nation status and the fact that it is a caucus state Iowa more than almost any other state helps demonstrate the organizational state of each campaign and their ability to do retailing politicing. It is unique in that respect and while I agree that it the results in Iowa are outsized given the states size it’s silly to think that Iowa isn’t enormously important in the primary process.
December 30th, 2011 at 6:31 pm
Mitt and Christie are kind of the odd couple, but they do complement and compensate for each other.
December 30th, 2011 at 6:33 pm
I don’t know if David Morris, Senior Political Editor, The Kiplinger Letter has any clout of has any political savvy or not, but I really like his analysis:
Iowa Victory or Not, Romney Poised to Be Republican Pick
Read more: http://www.kiplinger.com/columns/washington/archives/iowa-caucus-2012-romney-republican-presidential-candidate.html#ixzz1i4FsN100
Key part:
December 30th, 2011 at 6:34 pm
My #7 comments were intrupted by having to tend with incoming groceries.
1) Obviously a Romney win in Iowa, followed 7 days later by a victory in NH, ends this thing pretty early, despite some further news print being wasted on how SC will be the showdown.
2) No matter where Paul finishes, he’ll never be serious contender
Matt and Boomer pretty summed up it for the others and the balance of the race.
I am beginning to think a Christie pick might be fun and put in play theose Northeast states in a bigger way than the WH may be thinking. Forcing Team Obama to play defense on their turf allows Team Romney to make inroads.
I think Rom has a better path to 270 EV than Obama.
December 30th, 2011 at 6:38 pm
24 MassCon,
It was either you or another die-hard Romney supporter in another post where we were discussing Romney’s VP choice. I had mentioned Ryan, and I could’ve sworn that it was you who mentioned Christie as a VP choice. It might’ve been someone else, I could be mistaken.
December 30th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
Race4’12 has become a pleasant place to discuss politics again.
Almost no loony posts, the rabid anti-Mitts have gone elsewhere, and Craig for Loser’s trolling has ended.
Also, Craig for Losers has stopped his machine gun posting of polls and Intrade stats for the early states….I wonder why?
December 30th, 2011 at 6:43 pm
Keith Price Says:
December 30th, 2011 at 6:33 pm
…
Ho ho ho, Merry Christmas!!…LOL
December 30th, 2011 at 6:50 pm
25 Teledude,
But, given how these Iowa voters have gone back and forth with all these candidates, it would’ve been a no-brainer that had she ran, they would’ve all had jumped on the Palin bandwagon. She might’ve taken Iowa by a huge margin.
That said, I think it’s possible that if, God help us, Obama gets re-elected, and Palin ran in 2016, that the army you mentioned might reform in support of Palin. Of course, I’m just speculating, but, if we do lose in 2012, I’d keep a close eye on whether, starting in 2013, Palin starts making lots of trips to Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida.
December 30th, 2011 at 6:56 pm
31 Jerald,
I agree. Craig, Casuist, and SoJo have all mysteriously disappeared. Maybe they’ve realized Mitt WILL be the nominee and the realization of that thought has forced them to commit suicide.
Anyway, it’s nice to have conservation on Race42012.com without someone referring to Mitt as Willard.
December 30th, 2011 at 7:01 pm
Just received my first negative robo-call against Rick Santorum. It’s amazing to watch as a candidate rises in the polls, how the mud starts flying. This one was all about how terrible Santorum is on 2nd amendment issues, and he even backed ubber liberal gun grabber Arlen Specter! it was paid for by the “National Association for Gun Rights” a group previously unheard of.
Interesting.
December 30th, 2011 at 7:04 pm
Tele,
Is it normal for average Iowans to just not answer the phone if it’s a campaign, poll, or robocall? I sure as hell know I wouldn’t. Maybe you do answer and listen because you’re a political guy, but do most people just answer and hang up?
December 30th, 2011 at 7:05 pm
Tele, I found their site, take a look
http://www.nationalgunrights.org/
December 30th, 2011 at 7:10 pm
I think the “Not Mitt” bracket is seriously oversimplified. While Mitt is not the first choice of any of those candidates (shocker!), he frequently is the second choice cited by many of those voters–more frequently the 2nd choice than any other candidate right now. To suggest that voters favoring those candidates are a homogenous voting block is unrealistic. There are many Bach/Sant voters that despise Perry or Newt more than they dislike Mitt. There are people not voting for Mitt for many different reasons (Romneycare, moderate, Mormonism, etc.) There are people not voting for Newt/Perry/Sant/Bach for specific reasons too–not just because they’re avoiding Mitt at all costs. Newt’s background (that Iowa now knows about) has caused many voters to leave him for good–this trend will likely follow him across the nation. Perry’s negative campaigning against Bach/Sant have likely made a % of their voters permanently anti-Perry.
There are many different currents in this race, and while the anti-Mitt effort is a real current, it is seriously overstated. Even within the candidates that appear to make up that block, there are many 2nd choices, including Mitt. As candidates begin dropping out after Iowa, an effort will be made to stop Mitt in SC, but the remains of the quitting candidates will split to several candidates, including Mitt.
IMO the only chance to beat Mitt is in Iowa. If he wins there, it’s over. After an Iowa win and a NH blowout, the party will begin uniting. A last effort will be made to slow Mitt down in SC, but the vote of the candidates that drop will splinter, many going to Mitt, who will appear to be the inevitable nominee by then. And if Mitt is 3-0 at that point, he’ll easily go on to be 9-0 by Super Tuesday.
December 30th, 2011 at 7:11 pm
Most hangup or just quit answering the phone. When the phone rang my wife said, “Great, I suppose we’ll get a hundred calls again tonight!”
It does get old. Yes, I listen (the first time) to try and figure out who’s behind the call.
December 30th, 2011 at 7:17 pm
With NewsMax and Deace’s backing, we could see a mild resurgence for Newt, on top of Santorum’s surge. Perry is spending a ton of money. We could end up with no resolution for the socons, all of them, except perhaps Michelle, moving on with middling strength to SC. We could still have a very fragmented far right block until then.
December 30th, 2011 at 7:19 pm
This “not Mitt” terminology is idiotic. It’s an internet fad that doesn’t explain anything.
The question is whether these folks can convince their campaign contributors to keep dumping money into their campaigns after they get defeated. Iowa is where they all have a chance to win by driving around the state on a bus. But in SC and FL, if they don’t have +$10 million in the bank to fight an air war on television they might as well stay home.
Now it looks like romney is first tier alone (he secured NH and may win IA), ron paul is second tier, and all the others are fighting for the scraps in the basement. They have no victories in sight and are hoping for a miracle. It may happen for Santorum in Iowa. But if he loses he wont get very far.
December 30th, 2011 at 7:22 pm
41
Agree totally.
Also, this makes for some awesome imagery:
December 30th, 2011 at 7:34 pm
Makes a compelling case
http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-politics/why-i-am-endorsing-newt-gingrich-for-president/
The Left has used unelected judges and judicial oligarchy to reinvent the American way of life, from secularism to the loss of the sanctity of life, to the redefining of marriage, the confiscation of private property, and the granting of imaginary rights. There is an entire chapter of my new book devoted to the need for conservatives and Christians to confront judicial oligarchy once and for all. I have spent the past two years of my radio program educating my audience on this issue, and was a vocal proponent of Iowa’s historic judicial retention election last year, and Newt’s assistance with that effort was vital.
After offering every candidate in the race the chance to show they understand the gravity of this issue, Gingrich is the only one who has demonstrated he does, and can also use the bully pulpit of the presidency to educate Americans on the need to return to the rule of law.
I understand Newt has taken positions and done things in his personal life I do not agree with, but to his credit he has come on my radio program and been very transparent about those things, and has shown humility and a willingness to be transparent in the process.
He has signed the Personhood Pledge I advocated for. He has offered one of the most articulate defenses of marriage and the family I have ever read from a candidate. He has agreed to never sign a budget into law that includes a plug nickel for an abortion provider. He has agreed to seek personhood legislation and a stronger defense of marriage act that would limit the judicial oligarchs’ ability to legislate from the bench.
With these steps he has shown the leadership this country desperately needs. Electing another Obamney from the ruling class changes nothing. Electing another nice conservative with no proven ability to govern or a killer instinct to take on the system changes nothing, even if it makes us all feel warm and fuzzy inside.
This is a time for leadership, not warm fuzzies. The future is at stake, and we may never get another environment with the country so prepared to challenge the system as we have right now.
December 30th, 2011 at 7:38 pm
This is all interesting. But remember what i’ve been saying. Ron Paul will get OVER 30% of the vote on caucus night. How does that make all of this work out? The race is between Paul and Romney. It’s an uphill battle for Paul of course…but Romney has had the perfect storm to make sure that he is the nominee. All of the strongest people declined to run…and all of the candidates other than Paul or Romney haven’t run before, are weak on the issues or weak in personality…have made major miscalculations in the campaign.
Ron Paul and Mitt Romney have run almost flawless campaigns. Had someone stronger entered…such as ryan or jindal etc…..this would all be very different for sure. Ron Paul has the added bonus of having a lot of experienced volunteers that know how the caucus system works. They are positioning themselves to become delegates….regardless of the voting. It will be interesting to see what all happens this time out.
December 30th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
44. how? He’s not even polling that well anymore.
December 30th, 2011 at 7:41 pm
Steve Deace. LOLOL.
what a loser.
December 30th, 2011 at 7:43 pm
Good week of endorsements for Newt.
WHO talk show host: Steve Deace
Hoover Institution senior fellow Thomas Sowell
Reagan economist Art Laffer
President Reagan’s son, Michael Reagan.
Not big time politicos, but these guys have some sway with movement conservatives.
December 30th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
45 Rightgal,
Wateredseeds likes to ignore polls. His worship of Paul is beyond reason.
44 Wateredseeds,
Niether Romney nor Paul have runned flawless campaigns. Romney hasn’t made the case yet with these co-called evangelicals or they’re wouldn’t be the so-called Not-Romney candidate. And everytime Paul talks about foreign policy he hurts himself big time.
December 30th, 2011 at 7:59 pm
#3 GNV: If the South Carolinians doubled their sense of self-importance to the nominating process, they still wouldn’t hold a candle to the self-importance of the Iowans and New Hampshirites.
December 30th, 2011 at 8:02 pm
12/30/11
Ads and 30-Minute Special Will Promote Gingrich
DES MOINES — Newt Gingrich’s well-financed allies are coming to his rescue in Iowa, securing large chunks of airtime across the state.
Newsmax, the conservative magazine and Web site, will show a 30-minute special on Mr. Gingrich throughout the weekend in all of Iowa’s major television markets. The program is hosted by Michael Reagan, son of the former president, and makes the case that Mr. Gingrich is the strongest candidate to carry forward Ronald Reagan’s legacy.
“Millions of dollars in negative ads have been spent against him,” Mr. Reagan says. “But let’s discuss the real Newt Gingrich.” Soft music then starts to play and the camera cuts to a black and white photograph of Mr. Gingrich as a boy.
A second major player in conservative circles, Liberty University, the evangelical institution founded by Jerry Falwell, is also giving Mr. Gingrich some help in Iowa, running 30-second commercials in which Mr. Gingrich extols the virtues of a Liberty education.
Liberty is the second organization in recent weeks to advertise on Mr. Gingrich’s behalf in Iowa. Citizens United, the nonprofit that produces conservative films, has been showing old commercials featuring Mr. Gingrich, the former House speaker, and his wife, Callista, promoting a video on Ronald Reagan.
December 30th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
48,
I don’t ignore polls. I study them for accuracy. But i know what the reality is. They aren’t measuring ron paul’s actual level of support. He’s much closer to 30% than to 10%. You’ll see what i mean on caucus night. Maybe i’m wrong…and i’m overestimating. But i doubt it.
December 30th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
marK,
I endorse your expansion on my theory. I think you’re right. If the Not Mitt bracket doesn’t sort this out in Iowa, it will probably be too late in SC.
December 30th, 2011 at 8:46 pm
Wateredseeds, are you in Iowa?
December 30th, 2011 at 10:56 pm
Telly, maybe they are just trying to torture you Iowans enough to get you to give up that first in the nation status…
December 30th, 2011 at 11:18 pm
54
YES
December 31st, 2011 at 12:12 am
It appears all of the candidates have some sort of baggage. It is right to vet these candidates as to who they really are, not the campaign promises they readily put forth. Polls, most of the time I do not trust them when the numbers are so close. That 23% means diddly when it becomes a 3 person race, then a 2 person race. In the end as long as the nominee is NOT slick Rick Perry, and someone who can beat Obama, I will be fine with that.
December 31st, 2011 at 2:22 am
48.
Ozzy, I think Romney CHOSE to essentially ignore the so-called evangelicals this round. One, his efforts last round didn’t work. Two, by ignoring them, it makes him more palatable in the general where there are a lot of people who are afraid of or annoyed at the far right SoCons.
December 31st, 2011 at 4:00 am
Santorum could not get reelected to the Senate in Pennsylnania (a swing state) in 2006. The GOP will not nominate him to go up against Obama.
December 31st, 2011 at 12:17 pm
44. “All of the strongest people declined to run…”
Says who? You really don’t know who is a strong candidate until the DO run. Rick Perry appeared to be a no-miss candidate to the masses, but after a few weeks we saw he had some major limitations. Yes, there were other candidates that appeared potentially viable that chose not to run, but we don’t know how strong they would have been as candidates. I hear this claim constantly and it’s without basis in anything beyond a perception based in “the grass is always greener” psychology.
December 31st, 2011 at 12:20 pm
57. Exactly. Romney worked very hard to convince the Evangelicals that they could trust him in 2007. It had absolutely no effect. After four years of ignoring them he’s currently garnering a higher % of Evangelical support now than he was then.