Ron Paul’s presidential campaign isn’t over, but it’s grinding to a semi-halt.
The candidate announced on Monday that he will no longer actively campaign in new states, even as he continues to pursue his strategy of winning delegates at state conventions.
“Our campaign will continue to work in the state convention process. We will continue to take leadership positions, win delegates, and carry a strong message to the Republican National Convention that Liberty is the way of the future,” Paul said in a statement released on Monday by his campaign.
“Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted. Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have,” Paul said. “I encourage all supporters of Liberty to make sure you get to the polls and make your voices heard, particularly in the local, state, and Congressional elections, where so many defenders of Freedom are fighting and need your support.”
…
Paul told Fox’s Chris Wallace in January that, if he does not win the Republican Party’s nomination, a worthy consolation prize would be gaining some influence over the party platform, or making a high-profile speech in Tampa.
“That’s the fallback. If we don’t pull it off and we’re not in first place, yes, that would be a good goal,” Paul told Wallace after the Iowa caucuses.
Serious question: is there a more worthless document than a party’s platform? I’ve heard many times over the years that the platform is something that they fight over like cats and dogs for three days, and a week later nobody can find a copy of it.
It is unambiguously clear to any political observer who does not have partisan preferences, and even to most who do, that the 2012 Republican contest for the party’s presidential nomination is over. Mitt Romney will be that GOP candidate against Barack Obama in November.
On Sunday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich acknowledged as much in a forthright and professional way. He also said that if, as he expected, Mr. Romney were the nominee, he would do everything he could to assist his election as president. This is what serious and mature politicians do. It is what Mr. Romney himself did, as soon as he realized he could not win the nomination in 2008, by promptly endorsing John McCain and then working hard to help Mr. McCain in his November campaign.
Rick Santorum has apparently not reached the same conclusion as Mr. Gingrich has, and continues his campaign, now risking that his hard work in Iowa and his late emergence as a contender will be forgotten, and his conduct from here on will be regarded as pathetic and a self-caricature, possibly ending in two weeks in his home state of Pennsylvania where he might well be humiliated by losing there.
Mr. Romney, for all intents and purposes, has moved on to the next level, i.e. his contest with Mr. Obama. He had planned a massive ad buy immediately in Pennsylvania, but in the face of the illness of Mr. Santorum’s daughter, he suspended these ads until the former Pennsylvania senator returns to the campaign, presumably at mid-week. He thus demonstrates a professionalism and personal stature that, alas, Mr. Santorum so far has failed to show. (This, too, will likely not be lost on Pennsylvania voters.)
Ron Paul also remains in the race. He has not won a single primary or caucus. Nontheless, he has consistently made his points about the economy, and that was his purpose. He has indicated he would not, having lost the race for the nomination, now turn and run for president as an independent. He has had foreign policy disagreements with all the other GOP candidates, but now at the end of his political career, he appears ready to bow out gracefully.
Hillary Clinton retired from the 2008 Democratic nomination contest although that race was much closer than the 2012 GOP race is now. She might have contested some of Mr. Obama’s delegates at the Democratic convention, but the resulting bitterness and acrimony would have likely doomed the Democrats’ chances in November.
Electoral politics is a profession and a business. Those who are successful in it know how it works best, and how, with room for individual personality and imagination, a politician conducts himself or herself in a manner that commands respect and admiration.
______________________________________________________________________
-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site.
According to the AP, Mitt Romney is now exactly halfway to sewing up the nomination:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Mitt Romney is halfway to clinching the Republican nomination for president.
The former Massachusetts governor inched up to 572 delegates on Monday — exactly half the 1,144 needed — after the Tennessee Republican Party finalized delegate totals from its March 6 primary. Results in several congressional districts were too close to call on election night, leaving three delegates unallocated.
Romney got all three delegates. He also picked up an endorsement from a New Hampshire delegate who had been awarded to former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman. Huntsman dropped out of the race in January and endorsed Romney.
…
According to the Associated Press tally, Romney has more than twice as many delegates as Santorum. Santorum has 273 delegates, followed by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich with 135 and Texas Rep. Ron Paul with 50.
With the Republican Primaries winding down and Mitt Romney now the overwhelming odds-on favorite to win the Republican nomination, the attention of the GOP will now focus on two things. One will be the selection of the Governor’s running mate on which much ink has been spilled already. The other will be the Republican National Convention in Tampa. Governor Romney will have the majority of the delegates and by then all of them will want to show a united Party. However, to get Santorum, Paul and Gingrich delegates enthusiastic about him, Governor Romney might have to give them something. The easiest place for this to happen is in the party platform and it is here that we might see some diplomacy from the Romney campaign to help unite the Party.
The most particularly vexing group at the convention will no doubt be the Ron Paul supporters. With Congressman Paul having such different views than his fellow Republicans on a variety of issues, coming to an agreement him and his forces will require some delicate maneuvering. Even though Congressman Paul will probably end up at least giving verbal support to Governor Romney, his supporters will want something in return. A good speaking slot will be a must for Congressman Paul, but another thing that could give the Paul supporters something to cheer about will be in the platform. Paul’s foreign policy is clearly unacceptable to the majority of Republicans, but his economic views are closer to the GOP mainstream and it is here in the platform that the Paulites can show their influence. A plank calling for an audit of the Federal Reserve would make Paulites happy, as would a plank setting up a commission to look at the nation’s monetary policy. Congressman Paul has made both of these things major talking points in his campaign. These two planks should help satisfy the Paul supporters and to be blunt, a man who only has 71 delegates at this point doesn’t deserve any bigger concessions.
The Gingrich and Santorum camps shouldn’t require too much negotiation; after all the differences between the top three contenders aren’t that great. Suffice to say, Romney will have to have to include a strong pro-life and socially conservative plank in the platform to make Senator Santorum happy. A specific plank on restoring America’s manufacturing competitiveness would also show Santorum’s message has been acknowledged by the GOP. As for Gingrich, he’s been talking a lot recently about energy issues, so letting him have some say on the energy plank would help soothe the Speaker’s ego. The Speaker is an idea’s man, so if Romney discusses the platform with Gingrich, would fit with Gingrich’s desire to be a policy voice inside the Party.
To be sure, there will be other things as well that will be done to help unite the GOP around Governor Romney: endorsements by both his competitors, a good running mate choice, and the thought of beating President Obama will all heal whatever interparty wounds have developed from this primary season. But if Romney wants to give his rivals some policy influence, the GOP platform could be the way to do it.
If you thought Newt Gingrich campaign was a long-shot, it just got harder. From the GOP rulebook:
Nominations(b) Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a plurality of the delegates from each of five (5) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination.
So Newt must win at least five states before he can get his name placed in nomination. He has won two: South Carolina and Georgia. Is there anyone out there that thinks he can win three more? Remember in Illinois, he came in fourth behind Ron Paul. He also lost to Santorum in Mississippi and Alabama.
There is an out. If he can manage to convince enough uncommitted delegates to give him a plurality in five states, he can get his name placed in consideration. But how likely is that to happen? He’s been stuck at about 15% and hasn’t been in the twenties for at least six weeks. When Santorum had that slide a month ago, it didn’t help Newt one bit. And if that weren’t enough, his donations have pretty much dried up. If it weren’t for his friend in Nevada continually funding his super-PAC, Newt would have no money left.
Speaking of Ron Paul, he’s even worse off than Newt. He hasn’t won a single state. However, most observers have long speculated that winning the nomination was never Paul’s real goal. It would be great if it happened, but his true purpose was supposedly to amass enough delegates to be a force in drawing up the platform. So getting nominated is likely not high on his priorities.
The primary season may go on for another three months, but the Caucus is almost over. Next Tuesday, Hawaii holds its Caucus and then Saturday Missouri holds a more byzantine process with no delegate preference announced coming out of the Caucus. Then that’s it for Caucuses, followed 25 State Primaries in a row.
This is likely to bring a change to the Ron Paul campaign. Paul has been focused exclusively on winning caucuses and sneaking in as many of his people as delegates. Where does Paul go to get delegates from here?
Most states after March 17th are proportional or winner-take-all by Congressional District. But even the proportional states have a threshold of between 15 and 25 percent that Paul is unlikely to breach. But there are a few places Paul can try to be competitive in the remaining states:
North Carolina (May 8th) and Texas (May 29th) have no threshold for delegates and Oregon (May 15th) has an easily achievable 3.5%. In Kentucky, the threshold is 15%, but with Paul’s son being the Junior Senator, Paul has to feel good about his chances.
In addition to this, two states hold primaries that don’t determine delegates: Nebraska (May 15th) and Montana (June 5) and Paul and his people will probably be active in trying to get delegates to the state convention.
After next Tuesday, these six states will probably be Paul’s best shot at increasing his delegate load, so his focus will most likely be there as well as on Congressional work. As long as the process remains competitive, Paul probably has no shot at winning delegates elsewhere, so his campaign appearances will probably be more rare over the next few months. Back in December, the 76-year old Congressman questioned his ability to hold up in a long primary process and after March 17th, he’ll have plenty of chance to ease up.
Since last summer, the various GOP primary opponents have offered a myriad of tax and budget proposals. Different pundits, think tanks, campaigns and others have come up with their own numbers on the budget-balancing sincerity of all of the GOP candidates, and this has caused many of the candidates to spend a vast amount of time, ink and money defending (or in the case of Romney, expanding and then semi-retreating from) their respective plans. However, I think the candidates have erred in doing so. Rather than spend time on their own flawed proposals (with the exception of Ron Paul, whose cuts are so necessarily massive the budget would actually balance, and quickly), the candidates should focus on a four-prong attack on President Obama’s FY 2013 budget proposal, which is far worse than any of the candidates’ plans.
The first attack point should hit the economic growth projections of the President. I used this attack last evening in a post on the Reason Foundation blog:
[T]he President’s FY 2013 budget assumes 3 percent “Real GDP” growth for 2013 and “around 4 percent annually” in 2014. This projection is far greater than the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) expectations, which as of January 31, 2012 were that: “real GDP [will grow] by 2.0 percent this year and 1.1 percent next year [2013].”
The wish-based estimation by the President is consistent with the inaccurate projections in the President’s FY 2012 budget, which said 2011 would have economic growth of 3.1 percent and 2012 would grow at 4 percent. The CBO, which said in 2011 that growth in 2011 would be 2.7 percent and 2012 will be 3.1 percent, was far closer to the actual GDP growth of 1.7 percent in 2011, as currently calculated by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Since the President’s proposal was intended as an election budget instead of a true starting point on the upcoming budget debates of FY 2013, I think it’s safe to assume CBO is going to continue being more accurate when it comes to economic growth expectations than the White House.
The second point of attack should focus on the President’s tax hikes, both those explicitly stated and manipulatively unstated. In his proposed FY 2013 budget, the President claims the intention of enacting tax increases of $1.561 trillion over the next ten years. However, as pointed out by Curtis Dubay of The Heritage Foundation, the President claims credit for extending a number of current tax policies…but in doing so he claims he is cutting taxes. Clearly, extending current policy (in this case, the Bush-era tax rates for those making less than $250,000 annually) cannot be considered a new tax cut. Between this misleading statement and actual tax increases Dubay found, President Obama’s tax increases are far closer to $2 trillion than $1.6 trillion.
Third, of the $4 trillion in deficit “cuts” over the next ten years, over a majority consist of those mandated in the Budget Control Act and winding down military actions Iraq and Afghanistan (for the record, the latter is a bipartisan trick, used by both parties in the last three years alone). As noted here:
Similarly, the President says in his budget message, “[T]his budget will cut the deficit by $4 trillion over the next decade.” But that includes $2 trillion in deficit reduction already enacted into current law under the Budget Control Act of 2011 and other measures last year. The President can’t claim savings for his new budget that were already enacted into law last year.
Moreover, the President is taking credit here for the spending cuts Tea Party Republicans forced on him to get his debt ceiling increase…over his demand for a “clean” debt limit increase. President Obama rhetorically blowtorched the Republicans for forcing him to the wall over the debt limit increase to get those spending cuts, and continues to do so. But in his budget message, he wants to take credit for those results.
The President also includes in his supposed $4 trillion in deficit reduction another trillion in savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But those funds were never requested and were never going to be spent…
The President’s budget also doesn’t include over $300 billion in additional spending just enacted in the Medicare “doc-fix”…But the budget does include $300 billion in assumed debt interest savings from all of these supposed deficit reductions in the budget that are not new deficit reductions.
That leaves an actual net deficit reduction proposed in this budget of $400 billion over 10 years, only about 10% of what Obama claims, and less than 5% of the additional deficits and debt that would otherwise result over the next 10 years.
The fourth attack is a simple one: Does the President actually think a tax hike of nearly $2 trillion is in any way plausible, given the current makeup of the House and Senate, especially in a year when Senate Democrats are desperate to keep their majority? (To those who are opposed to the candidacy of Ron Paul, yes, I am aware that his proposed cuts are unrealistic as well. However, he is not the President of the United States, and therefore can propose what he wants as opposed to what can pass into law.)
The fact is that most of the remaining candidates’ tax and budget plans nibble at the edges of our vast tax and spending problems – again, with the exception of Paul. Rather than let an Obama-friendly media dictate the course of the economic and spending debates, the candidates should relentlessly and aggressively note the obvious: “The President put forth a budget that fudges the numbers, hides the facts and is a campaign document instead of a governing proposal. This is irresponsible, and I can do better. “
Mitt Romney has won the Wyoming Caucuses. The final results were:
Romney 39% Santorum 32% Gingrich 21% Paul 8%
—
Here’s the latest tally of states won:
Romney Santorum Gingrich Paul IA 0 1 0 0 NH 1 0 0 0 SC 0 0 1 0 FL 1 0 0 0 NV 1 0 0 0 MN 0 1 0 0 CO 0 1 0 0 MO 0 1 0 0 ME 1 0 0 0 AZ 1 0 0 0 MI 1 0 0 0 WY 1 0 0 0 TOT 7 4 1 0
Romney has now won seven. (Seven and a half if you count IA as a tie.) Five are binding (NH, FL, NV, AZ, MI). Two are not (ME and WY). Momentum-wise he has won four in a row including the hard-fought Michigan. He badly needed that after letting Colorado slip away from him two weeks ago.
Santorum has won four. (Three and a half if you count IA as a tie.) Not a single one of them is binding. Momentum-wise, he’s fading. He hasn’t accomplished a thing since his big night two weeks ago, and he just let Michigan slip through his fingers. He is now in the position that Romney was two weeks ago after Mitt lost Colorado.
Gingrich has won only the state of South Carolina. The good news for him is it’s binding. In that respect Newt is one up on Rick. Momentum-wise, he really has none at the moment one way or the other. His only hope is that with Santorum fading, he can pick up enough of that support to become competitive once again.
Paul has yet to win anything.
—
Next up, Washington.
I spent all day yesterday traveling so I missed most of the excitement. When I finally got home and could check the news, Mitt Romney had already won both contests. So, what does it mean in the grand scheme of things?
Well, Mitt was supposed to win Arizona handily, and he did. The other candidates only put in token efforts in the state. Michigan was the big story.
Both Mitt and Rick Santorum pulled out all the stops in Michigan. It was Mitt’s birth state. It is a blue-collar Midwestern state where Santorum is supposed to be strong. It was a battle royal.
A little more than two weeks ago, Mitt led Rick 33 – 14% in the Michigan RCP poll average. Three days later after Santorum’s three state win, the polling stood at Santorum 39, Romney 29%. Rick went from a 19 percentage point deficit to a 10 percentage point lead. That is a swing of nearly 30 percentage points in a mere three days. Mitt was in serious trouble.
Nationally, Santorum passed Romney on the Gallup daily tracking poll on his way to a 36% peak reached on the 18th of February. Romney dropped to a low of 26% reached a day later on the 19th. All momentum had shifted to Santorum.
ABRs began confidently predicting a Michigan loss for Romney. “He’s done. Stick a fork in him”, were some of the comments seen around the web. They spoke too soon. They forgot that Santorum was the last Flavor-of-the-Month that had never really been vetted before.
It didn’t last for long. Only three days after Santorum passed Romney in the Gallup daily tracking poll, he reached his peak of 36%. He hung there for three days and began to slide. Romney reached his low point four days after losing the lead, hung there for two days, and began to rise. Momentum was shifting back to Romney. It looked for all the world like another ABR bubble burst.
Santorum could see his numbers in Michigan and nationally slipping and knew that if he lost the two big states of Michigan and Arizona, his campaign would be dealt a serious blow. So Rick went for broke in Michigan. But there is going for broke, and there is panicking. Rick panicked.
First he turned to personal nasty attacks against Mitt Romney. He started to throw everything at Mitt, including out and out lies. This was the exact same mistake that Newt Gingrich made in Florida and the lead up to Nevada. That, more than anything else, is what drove Newt’s numbers down into the low teens where Ron Paul is now threatening to pass him and take third place.
When that tactic failed to head off his slide, Rick tried one last desperate act; he sent out a robo-call to Democrats calling upon them to come to the polls and vote against Mitt. While that seemed to work as far as it went, it also helped to swing the undecided Republican voters against him. They broke heavily for Romney. That pretty much balanced out everything Santorum gained with that dangerous tactic.
There is only one excuse for desperate measures, and that is if you win. Rick Santorum did not win. He lost. In a state where he lead the polls by double digits just two weeks before, he lost. In a died-in-the-wool rust-belt state full of evangelicals, he lost. If desperate measures do not get you the victory, then you are invariably in a worst position than you were before. Which is the position that Santorum finds himself in this morning.
—
MT. PLEASANT, MICHIGAN — Ron Paul on Saturday laughed off remarks made by his fellow GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum earlier in the day speculating that Paul and Mitt Romney have a backroom running mate deal going.
“I don’t know what all that meant,” Paul chuckled backstage of a rally he held here at Central Michigan University. “No, we’ve never had a conversation, anything like that… but he’s a family person, I’ve known him for five years, so it is a little bit different. But I don’t agree with [him on] hardly anything probably.”
Santorum has openly speculated that Paul and Romney are working together. He vented his frustration at multiple events on Saturday that “in 20 debates, Ron Paul never attacked Mitt Romney.” During last week’s debate in Arizona, Santorum said, “I felt like messages were being slipped behind my chair.”
Paul admitted to reporters that he’s never “volunteered” an attack on Romney during a debate, but said he “answered the questions when they asked me.” He said Santorum’s sudden gripe about the issue shows that he’s “desperate.”
As for the Texas congressman’s attack ad’s, which have been harsh on Santorum but absent on Romney, particularly in Michigan, Paul said that “right now the anti-Romney candidate is Santorum, so I have to get his votes as I did at one time with Gingrich.”
…
So it would appear that the so-called Romney/Paul “alliance” is primarily a figment of Santorum’s imagination as he tries to explain away his bad debate performance by painting himself as a victim to outside forces. In that, he seems determined to follow in Newt Gingrich’s footsteps.
When Mitt Romney had two poor showings in the South Carolina debates, did he blame the moderators, the rules, his fellow competitors, or the obviously partisan Gingrich crowd? No. He analyzed what he did wrong and took steps to correct it.
When Newt had two poor debate performances in Florida, he blamed the first on the no-cheering rules and the second on the Romney campaign supposedly stacking the attendance in Mitt’s favor. Did he once take responsibility for his poor showing on himself? I never heard that he did if he did so.
So now again we see a candidate who did poorly in a debate trying to explain it away by blaming others. In this case, he is trying to claim that two meanies had ganged up and were picking on him.
Does that sound very Presidential to you?
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. If Santorum doesn’t quickly apply the lessons learned from last month’s Newt meltdown and get control of his message and his tongue, he is going to find himself following the path marked out so well by the former Speaker of the House. He’ll be lucky to be polling in the twenties.
Since it became increasingly clear, following my candidate (and employer) Gary Johnson’s decision to drop out and run third party, and my second choice Ron Paul’s failure to gain traction after his very-respectable-but-just-not-energizing-enough finishes in the Iowa and New Hampshire contests, that a libertarian would not be representing the Republican Party in the general election, my sense of disappointment, frustration, and burn-out has compelled me to take something of a slight break from politics for a month or two. (I’m sure you were all enormously grieved by my absence.) A lot of libertarians in the GOP have been, and are currently, going through this phase right now. One thing that may be snapping a lot of us out of our funk, however, is the chilling surge in popularity of Rick Santorum–quite possibly one of the most overtly anti-libertarian candidates ever to come within reach of the GOP presidential nomination.
(more…)
Not that Paul, the younger one.
From WFPL:
Kentucky’s junior senator says it would be an honor to be considered as a possible running mate for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Senator Rand Paul first discussed his higher aspirations at the beginning of this year. He said he wouldn’t close the door on being a Vice Presidential candidate. After a speech in Louisville today, Paul held that door firmly open, saying he wants to be part of the national debate.
Senator Rand Paul first discussed his higher aspirations at the beginning of this year. He said he wouldn’t close the door on being a Vice Presidential candidate. After a speech in Louisville today, Paul held that door firmly open, saying he wants to be part of the national debate.
Given the buddy-buddy relationship between Romney and the elder Paul, this seems like a possibility should Romney get the nomination.
Mitt Romney continues to get air support from his friend and ally Ron Paul:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgNJBdTaKE8[/youtube]
Poll numbers in the Republican presidential nomination contest have become no more than mood swings of conservatives who have allowed political emotion to supercede political common sense.
How else to explain the huge swings in poll numbers in the form of ”bubbles” that have now culminated in a surge for the weakest possible candidate to oppose President Obama in November?
Let me remind anyone who is interested in the outcome of this year’s presidential election that the vote in November when an incumbent is running for a second term is always a judgment by the voters on the record of the incumbent. The only time that is not true is when the opposition party nominates someone so weak and inappropriate that he or she becomes the focus of the election, and the incumbent’s campaign can successfully transform their own candidate’s weakness to voter alarm over the challenger.
As the vetting of Rick Santorum’s legislative record is now revealing, this record does not resemble the persona that he has put forward in his presidential campaign. His voting record is replete with inconsistencies, from the conservative point of view. His justification so far is that, hey, he was a senator from Pennsylvania and he was only representing his constituents. But wait a minute, conservatives, haven’t you already rejected that alibi from Mitt Romney who has argued that his apparent past moderate record was because he was governor of Massachusetts, arguably the most liberal state? At least, Mr. Romney has a valid point, Massachusetts IS the most liberal state. I’m originally from Pennsylvania, and I can testify to the fact that the Keystone State is one of the least liberal in the eastern U.S. If Mr. Santorum’s alibi had any validity, how can he explain losing he 2006 re-election by 18 points?
There was a reason that Mr Santorum was so lightly regarded at the outset on the 2012 campaign, He had been in Washington, DC for almost two decades, and was known as a political lightweight who took extreme views on controversial subjects.
I would agree to the point, made by many, that some of the best GOP candidates this cycle (including Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Jeb Bush, et al) chose not to run. But that point is moot now. There are only four candidates for the GOP nomination left. One of them, Ron Paul, is totally unelectable. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have each political warts and shortcomings. But they at least have both the stature and a political history which makes them serious candidates for president.
To his credit, Rick Santorum has worked hard, and unlike some of his 2012 colleagues, did not abandon the race because his poll numbers were low. Unfortunately his current political personality does not resemble his own record, a fact that would make him a mortally weak opponent to Mr. Obama who would easily make Mr. Santorum the issue in November, especially to independent voters, the ones who ALWAYS make the difference in a presidential election.
Unless they are suddenly suicidal and timid, the campaigns of Mr. Romney and Mr. Gingrich will not fail to point our Mr. Santorum’s huge vulnerabilities. Mr. Paul has already said “it is time to take the cover off” the former senator from Pennsylvania. If he is nothing else, Mr. Paul is a man of his word.
As I have pointed out time and again in the past year, no bubble against Mr. Romney has lasted for than a few days. Far more substantive candidates than Mr. Santorum learned this the hard way. Both the liberal and the conservative media have lots of motives to promote this latest bubble. But I remember when Mr. Cain, Mr. Perry and Mr. Gingrich were each ahead of Mr. Romney suddenly by double digits, and everyone seemed to ooh and ah over this remarkable circumstance.
Lest they become intoxicated by this phenomenon one more time, may I suggest to those who read this that we are now only days away from when the calendar will produce large numbers of actual delegates for one candidate or another. Like anyone being wooed, voters understandably are subject to wild mood swings just before they have to make a decision. But the time comes when a decision must be made.
___________________________________________________________________
-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L84N7sVvFXs[/youtube]
Found this on YouTube. A Ron Paul fan dug up a video of the 1983 Congressional baseball game and added all of the Ron Paul highlights including Paul going 2 for 3 with a single and a double, and catching a fly ball. Interesting for politics and baseball buffs, not a great argument for the presidency. But 27 years ago, Paul some ball player, at least when competing with fifty year-old Congressmen.
So far into this election cycle, I’ve been neutral, slowly coming to the decision of who I will be voting for in the Tennessee Primary.
Although this is not a traditional endorsement, I decided it was time to let the readers know who I plan to vote for. I felt that since I had some problems with each candidate, I was going to vote on principle, as opposed for voting who I feel will be the best candidate to take on Obama this fall. In the end, it made the decision much easier because I am not worrying about who anyone else plans to vote for, and can vote solely on whose policies will affect me directly.
It’s only one vote, but maybe I’m just deluded enough to think that my endorsement may be of some value to someone out there. The least I can do is draw attention to a particular issue that the next administration must address. I came to this decision earlier today.
more below…
Ron Paul on ABC This Week hit on a key point regarding the state of the election:
“There’s a lot of people not satisfied with any of the candidates out there,” the Texas congressman said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.” “And that’s why in many ways we’re seeing a lower turnout right now.”
Of course, Paul is one of those candidates so this is an interesting indictment. As Nevada results aren’t complete and won’t be for some time, it’s helpful to make a comparison to last time to see how bad turnout has been:
| State | 2008 Votes Cast | 2012 Votes Cast | 2012 Percentage |
| Iowa | 119,188 | 122,255 | 103% |
| New Hampshire | 234,851 | 248,448 | 106% |
| South Carolina | 445,677 | 603, 856 | 135% |
| Florida | 1,949,498 | 1,672,352 | 86% |
So in Florida, we see the big drop off. Prior to Florida, the turnout had actually improved markedly. There are a number of reasons why Florida turnout may have been low.
In the Florida Exit Poll, 34% of voters said Romney ran the most unfair campaign, 33% said Gingrich. Romney and Gingrich wallowed in a mud-wrestling match. Romney came out the victor as a full 42% of Florida voters said they wouldn’t be satisfied if Gingrich won compared to 31% if Romney won. The result is that Florida voters didn’t feel particularly positive about either candidate and after all, that was the choice were offered.
Another possibility is the race was far different in 2008. Romney secured a double digit landslide and that was the expectation going into Florida. However, 2008 was much closer with John McCain’s margin being about 5 points. In addition, Rudy Giuliani campaigned early and often planning on using Florida as a firewall. It should be noted that the more the inevitably mantra is pushed, the less voter turnout will matter. What we’re saying when someone says, “Mitt Romney is inevitable” is that, “Your vote really doesn’t count. Vote or not, we know who the nominee will be.”
Finally, in both Florida and Nevada, we have to note that 2008 was the first time that they had early contests with an opportunity to impact the direction of the Presidential race. In 2012, it’s a little less special. Again, with an inevitability narrative that said, “You might as well go fishing or skiing,” there was no special reason to show up.
This perhaps is why Rick Santorum’s performance in next week’s primaries is so critical. It may establish the idea for voters in future states that “This time it counts.” While most GOP voters will be willing to accept the results of a Romney coronation, there’s a large percentage of them who won’t show up if that’s all they get to do.
Reason lays out why Rep. Ron Paul’s 3rd place finish is not a good sign for the long-term strength of his campaign:
Las Vegas – Ron Paul’s distant third place finish in the Republican caucuses did not live up to the high expectations his campaign set for him in Nevada. For months now we have been told about his caucus state strategy and how it would allow him to gobble up delegates all the way to the convention. If a brokered convention went down Paul might be in a position to play kingmaker, we were told. Paul, with his devoted legions, was supposed to thrive in this tediously complex low turnout environment. It was Paul supporters that would not oversleep on a Saturday and show up to their caucusing station before 9:00 a.m.
At the time of this post Paul’s highly touted Nevada operation failed to overcome the nearly nonexistent operation of Newt Gingrich. We are still waiting on a quarter of the precincts to report their totals. But as it stands right now, Mitt Romney won with 47.6% of vote; Newt Gingrich placed second with 22.7%; and Paul finished third with 18.6%. Rick Santorum, who pretty much wrote this state off, finished in fourth with 11.1%.
If this result holds it is a significant setback for Paul, as caucuses like this are the core of his campaign strategy, one similar to Barack Obama’s in 2008. Paul supporters are the most fanatical of any of the candidates remaining but Nevada demonstrated that he cannot rely on them alone to carry him to victory in caucuses. His plans are running into another bump with at least one of the candidates taking the caucuse states very seriously.
Be sure to read the full story here.
Final vote tally for the Florida Primary with all precincts reporting:
Votes Percentage Romney 771,842 46.4% Gingrich 531,294 31.9% Santorum 222,248 13.4% Paul 116,776 7.0% Perry 6,742 0.4% Huntsman 6,182 0.4% Bachmann 3,947 0.2% Cain 3,481 0.2% Johnson 1,186 0.1% Total 1,663,698 100.0%
Margin of victory for Romney over his three main rivals:
Votes % Total % of Romney Gingrich 240,548 14.6% 31.2% Santorum 549,594 33.5% 71.2% Paul 655,066 39.9% 84.9% Gingrich + Santorum 18,300 1.1% 2.4%
So even if every single Santorum voter had voted for Gingrich, Romney would still have won. And we know from both anecdotal evidence as well as several polls that there was a large percentage of Santorum voters who would voted for Romney over Gingrich.
—
For reference, here are the results from the 2008 Florida Primary:
John McCain 701,761 36.0% Mitt Romney 604,932 31.0% Rudolph W. Giuliani 286,089 14.7% Mike Huckabee 262,681 13.5% Ron Paul 62,887 3.2% Fred D. Thompson 22,668 1.2% Alan Keyes 4,060 0.2% Duncan Hunter 2,847 0.1% Tom Tancredo 1,573 0.1% Total: 1,949,498 100.0%
So Mitt improved upon McCain’s percentage by 10 points and his own by 15. Mitt has 70,000 more votes than McCain had in 2008 and improved his own total by 166,000 votes.
Mitt Romney:
Newt Gingrich:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Rick Santorum:
Ron Paul:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VWWwDhkRpg[/youtube]
Here’s a clean piece of screen to discuss the results as they trickle in. Most polls are now closed in the state; those in the Central time zone will be closing in one hour.
The latest exit poll from Drudge shows Romney’s lead expanding to 49-33 over Gingrich.
WINDERMERE, Fla.–Next time, Eddie Dillard won’t wear flip-flops.
Dillard, a 29-year-old Ron Paul supporter from this suburb near Orlando, arrived to vote at his precinct at Winderemere Baptist Church early Tuesday morning. Pulling into the parking lot, Dillard noticed a man outside the polling place with a Gingrich sign. He decided to run home, slip into his “Ron Paul Rocks America” T-shirt, grab a “Ron Paul 2012″ sign from his garage, and return to give his candidate some representation outside the precinct after he cast his vote.
Dillard found a quiet spot along a sidewalk lined with tiny American flags and held up his sign. Little did he know, Newt Gingrich had chosen that very spot to make his first Primary Day campaign stop.
When Gingrich’s bus pulled up, Dillard stood silently holding his sign and watched the news-media horde swamp the candidate. Gingrich stepped down from the bus and made a beeline for Dillard. He stopped in front of Dillard and his sign and parked himself for a round of handshaking and pictures with voters. The placement couldn’t have been worse. There was Gingrich, standing with his wife Callista at their first event of the day, and a giant Ron Paul sign floated inches from their crowns.
Noticing the awkward optics, Gingrich aides and security personnel swarmed Dillard, trying to intimidate him into moving. One of Gingrich’s security agents stepped in front of him. When Dillard didn’t budge, the agent lifted his heeled shoe over Dillard’s bare foot and dug the back of it into his skin, twisting it side-to-side like he was stomping out a cigarette. Shocked, Dillard kept his ground and took a picture of the agent with his phone, which was quickly knocked out of his hand. Dillard slipped off his flip-flop to pick up the phone with his foot, and a Gingrich supporter kicked the sandal away.
“Don’t kick me!” Dillard said to the man who knocked away his sandal. More members of Gingrich’s security retinue approached, shoving their shoulders and chests in front of him.
“Just block him!” a Gingrich campaign aide said. “Everyone step on his toes!”
…
As Gingrich pulled away, Dillard looked down at his foot. With the adrenaline pumping, he hadn’t noticed the pain, but now it was starting to sink in. A bruise was forming, and there was a cut mark where the security agent had dug in his heel.
…
So, a Ron Paul supporter is assaulted by the Gingrich campaign for exercising his 1st Ammendment rights in a public place.
David Brody reports:
[Newt Gingrich] goes on to say that, “it may make me more normal than somebody who wanders around seeming perfect and maybe not understanding the human condition, and the challenges of life for normal people.” (Dig at Romney???)
Yup, Mitt Romney is definitely the odd one. Just imagine being 100% faithful to your one and only wife. That’s just plain weird.
Come to think of it, Rick Santorum has the same problem, doesn’t he? So does Ron Paul. It would seem then that according to Newt Gingrch, the only truly “normal” person running for President is good ol’ Newt himself.
Wasn’t this the same guy who declared that he only cheated on his wife because he was working so hard for his country?
From what I’ve read and heard so far from pundits, one theme seems to be that last night’s debate was poorly done.
Personally, I feel that crowd participation (cheering and booing) cheapens the whole process. This isn’t American Idol, and candidates playing to the crowd cheapens the feel of it.
The less circus like atmosphere, the better (in my humble opinion).
The only complaint I had is what came after. Sending the coverage over to MSNBC for post-debate reaction was a terrible idea.
