A political update

[drwex]

Huntsman is out. I agree with Scalzi that he decided to cut his losses early and is probably angling for a Secretary of State position in a Romney administration. IMO he has the experience, the balls, and the brains to be a good one.

Romney took several solid hits in the debate but sadly they were delivered by Gingrich. The evangelicals decided they were backing Santorum, which means the votes of the not-Romney bloc are going to remain divided. Gingrich's good showing in the debate comes at Santorum's expense and is a gift to the Republican power-brokers who can (and should) see a Romney->Gingrich->Santorum finish order as a clear sign of the weakness of the evangelical contingent in the party. Unless Romney continues sleepwalking (and maybe even if he does) I don't see Gingrich beating him in SC. A G-R-S finish is just barely possible if the debate goes very badly for Romney, very well for Gingrich, and the Tea Party throws its weight behind Gingrich. Much more likely is R-G-S in which case the question remains how much above 25% can Romney get.

On the longer view, Gingrich's biggest haymaker against Romney is still the financial/tax returns issue, which is a very poor strategic bet for him to make. He can't beat Romney this way.

Comments

[feste-sylvain.livejournal.com]

Fascinating. Why do you ignore Ron Paul? Last I saw, Santorum had all but completely tanked, and most of his losses went to Paul's camp.

BTW: in the last nationwide poll of Republicans, more than half (for the first time) considered Paul "electable".

Disclaimer: I did support Paul 24 years ago, but don't now. Ex-governor Gary Johnson was successfully shunned by the GOP, but will be running for the LP nomination, and I'll be supporting him there.

[drwex]

Does the phrase "batshit insane" not ring true to you? Santorum's views are vile but I don't consider them wholly insane. As I said in the previous post Paul's electability is twice what it was last time; sadly, twice nothing is still nothing. He'll do OK in polls and well in caucuses where individuals and organization and loudness count, but it won't translate into enough votes to place in the top 3, particularly in any state where crossovers and independents can't vote for him in a primary.

For one thing, Paul is pro-abortion. That's a death knell all on its own and even if it wasn't his stance on foreign military involvements renders him vulnerable to the pro-Israel fanatic wing. Those two stances (which I consider two of his not-insane positions) render him completely anathema to 80% of the Republicans.

If he places above fourth in S.C. I'll buy you a beer of your choice. If Florida was not winner-take-all I'd rate his chances there as pretty good, but in a WTA state he's equally doomed.

[feste-sylvain.livejournal.com]

I have exactly the reverse of your opinion about the relative sanity of Paul and Santorum.

Perhaps you missed an important part of what I said earlier: more than half of Republicans consider Paul electable. This is not "twice nothing".

Paul is anti-abortion. He justifies this by being all states-rights about it, except for things like military health coverage, where he'd have it banned.

You're probably right about Florida.

[c1.livejournal.com]

I concur on the abortion issue: Paul is pretty clear that he wants to see abortion curtailed. From his website: (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/)

As an OB/GYN who delivered over 4,000 babies, Ron Paul knows firsthand how precious, fragile, and in need of protection life is.

Dr. Paul’s experience in science and medicine only reinforced his belief that life begins at conception, and he believes it would be inconsistent for him to champion personal liberty and a free society if he didn’t also advocate respecting the God-given right to life—for those born and unborn.

After being forced to witness an abortion being performed during his time in medical school, he knew from that moment on that his practice would focus on protecting life. And during his years in medicine, never once did he find an abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

As a physician, Ron Paul consistently put his beliefs into practice and saved lives by helping women seek options other than abortion, including adoption. And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:

* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”

* Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”

Because he agrees with Thomas Jefferson that it is “sinful and tyrannical” to “compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors,” Ron Paul will also protect the American people’s freedom of conscience by working to prohibit taxpayer funds from being used for abortions, Planned Parenthood, or any other so-called “family planning” program.

The strength of love for liberty in our society can be judged by how we treat the most innocent among us. It’s time to elect a President with the courage and conviction to stand up for every American’s right to life.

[drwex]

Well THAT's interesting. I had him down as pro-personal liberty and consequently pro-choice.

[c1.livejournal.com]

He's worth a vote in the primary, if for nothing else than he's the only GOP-er who wants to draw down the military, and that message needs to be broadcast a bit more -- America is relying too much on the military to be its main instrument of foreign policy, and I think the world is pretty sick of it now.
And really, he's too batshit insane to be actually electable, so it's a pretty safe ballot.
Romney, on the other hand, looks and sounds pretty presidential right now, and that's what scares me. If Romney wins the primaries, Obama's a four and out president. Paul is batshit insane, but he isn't dangerous, because everyone can see that he's batshit insane, plain as day. Romney is dangerous, because he's just as batshit insane, but he does an exemplary job of hiding it.

[drwex]

I don't count Obama out yet. Way too early. I also think that Obama's electoral fortunes depend much more on what the economy does in 2012 than anything else.

[c1.livejournal.com]

You heard it here first: The economy will be down for the count, barring any major miracles. Unemployment is still uncomfortably close to 10%, and to think that will be halved by November requires powerful hallucinogens. They're talking in louder tones about impending recession in Europe, which won't do the US economy any favours. Unless things remain substantially the same as they are now (I'm not going to be so naive as to think things will meaningfully improve; they'll get worse if anything at all) then Obama is a sitting duck come autumn.
I still contend that if Romney gets the GOP nomination, Obama gets fast tracked to the lecture circuit.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

He claims to be pro-personal liberty, unless it's women's health liberty, or the liberty of homosexuals to marry.

[drwex]

more than half of Republicans consider Paul electable.

Pfft. The bet stands. More than half of Republicans think the Tea Party is a good idea. Or did.

I continue to think Paul will do well in caucuses and small states where his organization shows strength, but he doesn't have the resources to compete in big states, particularly big media markets. His chances of getting the nomination still == 0.

[feste-sylvain.livejournal.com]

Well, he will most likely not be the candidate. It would take a major scandal on Romney's part to allow Paul to pull ahead.

I still believe that he will show, that is, come in third behind Romney and Gingrich in South Carolina. Given Gingrich's ridiculous response to Romney admitting that he pays a lower tax percentage than middle-class Americans, I predict a Romney victory, but there's still time for Gingrich to convince South Carolina Republicans that he's closer to their views than Milquetoast Romney.

Santorum is finally being recognized as a joke, just as Bachmann was. He will not beat Paul, even in South Carolina.

[drwex]

Hurm. Maybe. I'm less certain than I was 48 hours ago. Both Paul and Romney are going light on events in S.C. but on the other hand Santorum appears to be fading fast. Gingrich is picking up conservative voters that I thought would have swung to Santorum and even Perry is showing gains. In the end that's better for Romney as the anyone-but vote is now splitting three ways. Romney is now taking heat even from people who nominally support him such as Christie. If he is at all smart he'll make hay in the next debate by pointing out that his rivals' tax plans would drop the Romney rate to 0 so why do they care so much about his tax returns. He has to stop pretending he's running against Obama and start hitting back at the gang of four.

If the GoF have any brains at all they'll combine forces after S.C. behind whoever comes second and hope that person can beat Mitt in Florida. I still think Romney's going to take both SC and FL and have it sewn up at that point.

[marius23.livejournal.com]

Pretty much what feste_sylvain said (including the disclaimer). Pegging Paul as pro-abortion suggests that you don't actually know a lot about his positions. And I would actually think his pro-drug relegalization stance would be more of a strike than his non-interventionist foreign policy.

Oh, and if you're willing to extend that beer offer to me as well, I'll back it up by offering you the same option if Paul places below fourth.

[drwex]

For Paul to place below 4th would require him to lose to Perry, which is just not going to happen. Perry is effectively out of the race now, though he seems not to know it. As I said, it's almost certain to be R-G-S-P but there's some chance of a G-R-S-P finish.

[mrf-arch.livejournal.com]

I'd probably call Santorum the worse of the two. Paul's libertarian streak would have the government taken out of the public realm in may places, including such things as civil and gay rights law. (Removing government bullying is a lovely idea, but libertarianism attracts a passel of kooks and racists in no small part because removing government protection for minorities would advance their agenda nicely. There's a nice article on that here: http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/liberty-of-local-bullies.html ) though that streak takes an inconveniently timed break when abortion comes up (as per the other comments here) at least Paul is anti-foreign-war and opposed to the surveillance state. Santorum would simply keep the foreign wars and surveillance, and add the awful social engineering of the Paul platform too. (Except where Paul would take government out of the picture and leave room for local bullies, Santorum as a dominionist would just have the government itself take over as the bully, with a nicely Christian cast.)

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

Paul's libertarian streak would have the federal government taken out of the public realm in may places, including such things as civil and gay rights law.

FTFY.

[mrf-arch.livejournal.com]

Indeed. Thanks.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

It's one of the things I hate reading from a friend of mine: "RP wants the government OUT of the marriage business." AND "RP wants the feds to stop telling the states what to do" yet my friend cannot logically connect these two ideas, and their inevitable outcome.

[pryder]

I think Paul could conceivably place second. It's mostly because Gingrich and Santorum are trying to appeal to the same voters and might split them evenly as they did in New Hampshire, allowing Paul to sneak past both of them.

Right now it's looking more likely that Santorum's day as the non-RomneyPaul candidate of the week is over and the religious right portion of the Republican party will move back to Gingrich. That would lead to a strong second by Gingrich or even an outside shot at a win.

I also personally think that Romney is the only person in the Republican field who would have a prayer against Obama, though he would probably lose. Any of the others would lead to a defeat of historic proportions, comparable to Goldwater's loss in 1964.

As for Paul's position on abortion, at least it's consistent and well thought out. If you really do believe that life begins at conception then you MUST believe that abortion is wrong because it's murder, and because the right of an individual to continued life trumps all other rights. (I oppose the death penalty for that reason; I don't believe that the state has the right to murder.) I just think it's wrong. My own belief is that life begins at birth -- therefore abortion should always be legal, because the most important right in play is self-determination of the mother.

[drwex]

Paul has no constituency in S.C. There's the Romney/establishment vote which is pretty solid now that Huntsman is out, and there's the anti-Romney vote. If Paul draws any support it's from that latter group. People who are for Paul aren't going to vote for Romney in the primaries, though they'll line up behind him in the general election.

[pryder]

At least it looks like I was right about the Santorum fade, though the way things have changed so quickly this election season it's hard to be certain! If the current poll results hold up, Santorum will be out of the picture soon. Paul will soldier on at least until the winner-take-all primaries start to happen, but it will probably be a two-horse race with Paul as a sideshow.

[marius23.livejournal.com]

Okay, there's one thing that's really bugging me in this discussion and that's the application of the pejorative "batshit insane" to Dr. Paul. Either it doesn't mean to you what it means to me, or I'm missing something about Dr. Paul, or, most likely, we're working from very different premises. So, if you will, please enlighten me. What do you mean by "batshit insane" and why do you believe it applies to Ron Paul?

For a point of contextual reference, when I think of "batshit insane" I think of someone like Dick Cheney or Glenn Beck....

TIA

[drwex]

By "batshit insane" I mean "proposing something clearly impossible or not even vaguely thought out." Getting rid of the Federal Reserve is one such item. Pretending we can recreate Festung America is another.

Historically I don't think Cheney is/was insane. Just monumentally evil. Beck, if he believes what he says, would qualify. I can't tell if he really believes that shit or just says it because it causes people to froth and money to rain into his bank account.

[marius23.livejournal.com]

Well ending the Fed is clearly not "not even vaguely thought out" since he's written a book on the topic, so it must be in the "clearly impossible" category. Guess I must be "batshit insane" too.

"Festung America" is just a strawman on your part.

Meh, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. Feel free to have the last word.