Counting error means Santorum may have won Iowa caucuses

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yes, believe it or not.

Remember how close it was the other night? At one point Romney and Santorum were separated by just a single vote (with just less than 60,000 between the two of them), and, in the end, so we thought, Romney won by eight votes, 30,015 to 30,007. Even if you think the Iowa caucuses are ridiculously overhyped, even if you think the whole thing's ridiculous, a tiny fraction of the electorate seemingly with so much influence, it was quite amazing.

It was basically a tie, and it didn't really matter that Romney won by a hair. Santorum exceeded expectations, and gained momentum, not to mention some necessary credibility, in the process.

But...

It appears that Santorum may actually have won. As Des Moines's KCCI is reporting:

Caucus night was chaotic in many places, with hundreds of voters, candidates showing up and the throngs of media who followed. The world's eyes were on Iowa. But in the quiet town of Moulton, Appanoose County, a caucus of 50 people may just blow up the results.

Edward True, 28, of Moulton, said he helped count the votes and jotted the results down on a piece of paper to post to his Facebook page. He said when he checked to make sure the Republican Party of Iowa got the count right, he said he was shocked to find they hadn't.

"When Mitt Romney won Iowa by eight votes and I've got a 20-vote discrepancy here, that right there says Rick Santorum won Iowa," True said. "Not Mitt Romney."

True said at his 53-person caucus at the Garrett Memorial Library, Romney received two votes. According to the Iowa Republican Party's website, True's precinct cast 22 votes for Romney.

"This is huge," True said. "It essentially changes who won."

Now, that's that's hardly the end of the story:

A spokeswoman with the Iowa Republican Party said True is not a precinct captain and he's not a county chairperson so he has no business talking about election results. She also said the party would not be giving interviews about possible discrepancies until the caucus vote is certified.

So, as of right now, nothing's official. We'll have to wait for the certified result. But True says he's "certain."

If there was a mistake, it was probably a simple one, a simple error. But who knows? One would hope that an investigation would be conducted.

Otherwise, would it matter? Maybe not. The candidates, the media, and our attention have moved on to New Hampshire. But it would give Santorum a small boost to be able to say he won Iowa, the surging candidate no one was taking seriously beating the frontrunner with the elites behind him, a massive ground campaign, and a ton of money. It wouldn't really affect the vote in New Hampshire, which Romney will win easily, but it could narrow the gap just enough to give Santorum some extra hope heading down to South Carolina.

If nothing else, though, this turns our attention back to Iowa, if only briefly, which is bad for Romney. And this is just the sort of thorn in his side that could make his upcoming win in New Hampshire a tad less triumphant, with the narrative shifting in Santorum's favor.

BREAKING: Romney not a real conservative

By Michael J.W. Stickings 

Via twitter: 

25% of Iowans said the candidate being a "true conservative" was most impt issue to them. 1% of that group voted for Romney. Yowza. 

-- Chris Cillizza (@TheFix)

Smart people, them Iowa Republicans. Seems they can recognize a pandering faux conservative with a hollow political soul when one shows up and tries to sucker them into voting for him by denying who he used to be, and may still be, and spewing every little nugget of right-wing nonsense that comes to mind in an endless and pathetic attempt to prove his conservative cred.

(Come on, did you catch his truly awful speech the night of the Iowa caucuses? It was incoherent right-wing drivel. He made Santorum look like Reagan at his most rhetorically elegant.)

Are New Hampshire Republicans as perceptive? Do they care?

Live-blogging the 2012 Iowa caucuses: The greatest day in American democracy

By Michael J.W. Stickings

UPDATED FREQUENTLY.

9:06 pm - Okay, here we go. The 2012 presidential nomination season is underway. And by "underway" I mean, votes are actually being cast.

Is it a great day for democracy? Well, that's the intention. Old-school democracy. Caucuses (particularly in Iowa), unlike primaries, represent a sort of idyllic (if mostly obsolete) Jeffersonianism, the people actually coming out, talking politics, and making their choices. Unlike the atomized process of voting in a booth, in privacy, this is about community, about political engagement as something other than, more than, the mere casting of a ballot.

And by "the people," of course, I mean a tiny fraction of an otherwise alienated and disengaged electorate, the hardcore of the hardcore, extremists of partisanship, ideology, and political temperament. In this case, a tiny fraction of the electorate in a small state that, all due respect, isn't exactly representative of America. So why should it be so important? Why should it be the focus of our political obsession?

Exactly. There's really no good reason for it. If not for the fact that it's the first in the nation, a tradition that defies common sense. The nomination process is a long slog, but we do love the horse race, don't we? And any indication of who's ahead and who's behind is like a drug. For months, all we've had is polls, poll after freakin' poll. Now it's the real thing, baby. As crazy as it is, as ridiculous as the Iowa caucuses are, at least we're getting some votes. At least it all means something now.

And so here we are.

9:24 pm - Yes, it's what we thought it would be, a tight three-way race between Romney, Paul, and Santorum. With 18% reporting, here's the breakdown (via CNN):

-- Paul: 5,348 (24%)

-- Santorum: 5,283 (24%)

-- Romney: 4,988 (22%)

Yes, in a nation of 312,796,207 people, we're talking about a few thousand people launching the 2012 presidential race and holding enormous sway over where the race goes from here.

Let's just say Iowa's impact is a tad disproportionate.

All due respect.

9:31 pm - It's now even closer:

-- Romney: 6,297 (23%)

-- Santorum: 6,256 (23%)

-- Paul: 6,240 (23%)

Gingrich is back at 13%, Perry at 10%, Bachmann at 6%. Remember when each one was not least leading in Iowa but looking like the inevitable winner there?

9:45 pm - In case you missed it, the past couple of days were all about playground politics in Iowa. Which is to say, they were all about juvenile name-calling. For example:

-- Santorum: "Ron Paul is disgusting." (Oh yeah? Your mama is so fat...)

-- Paul supporters to Santorum: "nah nah nah nah, hey hey hey, goodbye." (Okay, that's pretty amusing.)

-- Gingrich: Mitt Romney's a liar. (A Romney Super-PAC has been relentlessly attacking Newt, contributing to his rapid decline, but Romney has denied any connection to it. Newt: "This is a man whose staff created the PAC, his millionaire friends fund the PAC, he pretends he has nothing to do with the PAC -- it's baloney. He's not telling the American people the truth.")

Well, he's right. Just as he's mostly right about this:

It's just like this pretense that he's a conservative. Here's a Massachusetts moderate who has tax-paid abortions in "Romneycare," puts Planned Parenthood in "Romneycare," raises hundreds of millions of dollars of taxes on businesses, appoints liberal judges to appease Democrats, and wants the rest of us to believe somehow he's magically a conservative.

I just think he ought to be honest with the American people and try to win as the real Mitt Romney, not try to invent a poll-driven, consultant-guided version that goes around with talking points, and I think he ought to be candid. I don't think he's being candid and that will be a major issue. From here on out from the rest of this campaign, the country has to decide: Do you really want a Massachusetts moderate who won't level with you to run against Barack Obama who, frankly, will just tear him apart? He will not survive against the Obama machine.

For a variety of reasons, Romney has largely escaped any sustained criticism from his rivals thus far. (See what I wrote about this earlier today.) But this conservative critique of Romney isn't going away. It just needs the right spokesperson. Maybe it's Newt. Maybe with his bad loss in Iowa he'll actually go on the offensive.

10:35 pm - Santorum now has a narrow lead over Romney, but we're only a little over halfway through this. Paul has fallen back a bit. (It's 24-24-22.)

10:37 pm - For a good look at the Iowa caucuses, and how they came to be so significant, see Ezra Klein's interview with Rutgers political scientist David Redlawsk. Key quote:

In fact, every cycle we have this question of whether somebody will try and leapfrog or jump ahead and that's how we get frontloading. The national parties try to penalize those who do that. This year, for instance, Florida is only getting half of its delegates because it violated the rules by trying to go early. So the system stays in stasis through a combination of Iowa and New Hampshire jealously guarding their privileges and the national parties penalizing anyone who tried to change the status quo. No one loves the current system, but no one has come up with something they would like better.

Even here, in this supposed democratic paradise, politics -- and power -- is about privilege.

10:46 pm - In case you were wondering, the population of the U.S. is now 312,796,488.

10:50 pm - Suddenly we're up to 88% reporting. It looks Paul has slipped to third and will end up there. It's now a two-man race between Santorum and Romney:

-- Santorum: 26,443 (25%)

-- Romney: 26,398 (25%)

-- Paul: 22,728 (21%)

Just 45 votes. Pretty amazing, really. We knew it would be close, but this is crazy.

And even though Paul is well back now, I'm sure his fanatical supporters will declare his third-place finish an historic victory heralding the Age of Ron Paul, the present and future of the Republican Party. They don't have a monopoly on delusion, to be sure, but they seem to have more than their fair share. 

10:56 pm - And Paul remains a bitter, nasty, and vindictive man. Here's what he (or one of his minions) tweeted (via) a while ago:

@JonHuntsman we found your one Iowa voter, he's in Linn precinct 5 you might want to call him and say thanks.

Nice.

Huntsman actually has 629 votes, a whopping 1% of the vote. Honestly, though, what's the point of kicking him when he's down? (Whatever the outcome, he's a bigger man than Paul will ever be.) 

11:07 pm - So we've moved up one to 89% but now Romney has the lead. What? How did this flip-flop so quickly? It's still 25-25, but he's up 27,101 to 26,976.

11:09 pm - Dan Amira at New York mag, with the funniest line of the day:

A few weeks ago, Rick Perry said he wanted to be the Tim Tebow of Iowa, and now a Michele Bachmann super-PAC ad is trying to make the same comparison. So which campaign is actually like Tebow? Both of them!: They were both wildly, inexplicably successful for a brief period of time, and now they are just embarrassing.

As a Steelers fan, I shouldn't laugh at jokes like this. I mean, what if Tebow beats them on Sunday? We're six days out, but my anxiety is already ridiculous.

11:13 pm - Did I mention that on the Democratic side Barack Obama has been awarded all delegates in Iowa? Yes, today isn't just about Republicans.

11:14 pm - At Crooks and Liars, where I do the blog round-up now and then, Rick Perlstein argues that Iowa doesn't matter, as Republicans always go with the "next in line":

Another pattern: the desperate attempts of the political press to drum up evidence of a competitive race, whatever the historical lessons that point obstinately in the opposite direction. It's not a hard argument to make: "on the ground," things always look competitive. The vaunted party "base" plain their disgust with the sell-out moderate party elites want to shove down their throats, dutifully falling in love with a series of far-right saviors in the earlier innings: President Pat Robertson, who nearly won Iowa in 1988; President Pat Buchanan, who took New Hampshire in 1992; and All Hail Huckabee the choice of Iowa caucus-goers in 2008—but not before Fred Thompson's moment in the sun later in the year, and after Rudy Giuliani dazzled conservatives who hadn't yet figured out that he was a cross-dresser with gay roommates The same thing always happens next: The insurgents fall by the wayside. The base comes around. Democrats fall in love; Republicans fall in line.

Is he right? Historically speaking, yes. And he may be right about 2012. Maybe it really will be Romney. But is that because Romney is "next in line," or because the various alternatives have been so weak? And while it's true that Republicans generally "fall in line," things may be changing in an age of social media and the decline of central-party politics. The moneyed elite, represented by Karl Rove, still wields enormous power in the GOP, as do mainstream pundits like Charles Krauthammer and George Will, but there isn't really a center anymore. Media giants like Dear Leader Rush are just as influential, if not more so, and they can reach millions (particularly grassroots primary/caucus voters, those in the base who have so much influence in these contests) without going through the party apparatus or requiring the approval of the establishment.

I agree with Perlstein that Iowa is far less important than people think -- or rather than the media tell us it is as they try to drum up drama -- but his assessment of how the GOP works may be based on a reality that has shifted over recent election cycles.

And as for Romney, I'm not sure he's "next in line." Why not, oh, Sarah Palin?

11:28 pm - 93% reporting, and Santorum has swung back into the lead, 28,201 to 28,086.

11:33 pm - Interesting results from CNN's "entrance poll":

-- 57% men, 43% women. (Doesn't sound fair, does it?)

-- By age: 17-29 (15%); 30-44 (16%); 45-64 (42%); 65+ (26%).

In other words, this whole damn thing is being decided by older white men. (Actually, that sounds pretty damn Republican.)

Also check out the results man. It's like a general election dividing the Democrat and Republican. Faux conservative Romney is winning the urban areas (like any Democrat would), notably Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, and Davenport, while social conservative Santorum is cleaning up in the rural areas (like any Republican would). Paul is doing well in the eastern part of the state, along the Illinois border. Perry has actually won a couple of counties in the southwest.

11:39 pm - 96% reporting, and it's tightened, now 28,958 to 28,879 for Santorum. Yes, fewer than 100 votes separate the two leaders. There's no reason to get too excited about any of this, unless you're a loyal follower of either one, but, again, it's pretty amazing that it's this close with almost 60,000 votes between the two of them.

11:44 pm - In case you were wondering, I'm rooting for Santorum. (Actually, I would have been rooting for Newt, until his fall. I'm still hoping he recovers and re-emerges as Romney main rival.) Because it's just so... ridiculous. And funny.

12:11 am - A CNN panel featuring Ari Fleischer and James Carville. Horrendous. I'm turning back to Family Guy or Chopped.

12:12 am - Crazy. It's even closer now. 97% reporting, and Santorum is up by just 37 votes, 29,210 to 29,173.

Whoever comes out on top, even by just a few votes, will declare victory, but I'm not sure it really matters. It's basically a tie.

It looked bleak for Romney in Iowa for a long time, but he's managed, if only because his conservative rivals are so weak, to come out with a fairly strong showing. And Santorum, of course, came out of nowhere to pull even with the supposed frontrunner, if only because Newt collapsed. Romney will go on to win New Hampshire easily. But he continues to struggle with a fairly low ceiling of support across the Republican board and needs to prove that he can win after New Hampshire, in South Carolina but even more importantly in Florida.

Meanwhile, Santorum needs to build off this result, in a state where he campaigned furiously (and where he put all his eggs), and show that he's for real. He won't be able to, because he isn't, but he might just be able to divide the anti-Romney vote long enough to guarantee Romney the nomination.

And what of Newt? Can he recover from this? Let's say he finishes a distant third in New Hampshire, behind Romney and Paul? What then? Will he have anything left? Will South Carolina be another Iowa, with the vote split and no clear winner? And can Newt, if he hasn't been thoroughly crushed by then, contend with Romney in Florida, where the polls have shown a one-on-one battle?

And what of Perry, who's now mailing his eggs to South Carolina. (Oh, he's still quite mad. He compared the 2012 election to Omaha Beach. I wonder what "The Greatest Generation" thinks of such nonsense.) Update: Scrap that. He's done.

12:17 am - Santorum on the TV. Just declared victory. (A surprise? Maybe not so much.) Before quoting that good Catholic mythologist C.S. Lewis. And thanking his wife. And then giving a public thanks to "God." And then thanking Iowans: "You... you... by not compromising... are taking the first step to taking back this country." Typical Republican BS, of course. What, take back the country from centrists like Obama? From the right-wing Republican majority in the House? From the 5-4 right-leaning Supreme Court?

Anyway, isn't today's result in Iowa the definition of not taking a stand?

12:25 am - Santorum favours cutting taxes and balancing the budget. No word on if he believe in unicorns and fairy dust. Then again, he believes in Jesus, so it's not like he lives in a rational world.

But... am I really saying this? He actually looks and sounds fairly impressive. He's certainly sincere, however delusional and extreme, and he's really come into his own, sweater vests and all, during this surge in Iowa. I still don't think he can pull this off, but maybe, if Gingrich can't recover, he'll be the guy who unites the right even at this late date. Raise your hand if you saw that coming.

12:32 am - In case you missed it, Santorum said that states have the right to ban birth control. Don't believe all his freedom talk for a second. He's a theocrat who values freedom only for plutocrats and within the confines of Christianist authoritarianism.

12:36 am - What motivates Santorum? -- "the dignity of every human life" (including "every working person"). Well, unless you're poor, or black, or whatever else he doesn't like or that in any way disturbs his God-fearin' worldview. But look, he's certainly more a man of the people than Romney...

12:38 am - ...who just emerged in front a big American flag. His wife: "we don't know who's won yet."

12:39 am - Well, Romney's being magnanimous, congratulating Santorum and Paul for a good campaign in Iowa.

12:41 am - With 99% reporting... get a lot of this: It's still 25-25, but now as close as it's been all night, 29,662 to 29,657 for Santorum. Five votes. That's it.

12:42 am - So what's Romney doing? Why, fearmongering about a "nuclear" Iran, of course, as if he wants to declare war right now, blaming Obama for not doing anything. (And what exactly should he have done?)

I can't listen anymore. It's typical Romney. Piling on Obama, saying nothing of substance, speaking too quickly, without pause, and also not connecting the way Santorum did, not telling his story the way Santorum did. He's just bullshitting. Like on energy: take advantage of oil and gas and nuclear and renewables. What does that even mean? Does he actually believe anything? Does he have any sort of concrete policy agenda? No and no, it would seem. Now he's talking about what programs he'd cut. But not really. He's just take a look at all of them. The only thing he mentions is Obamacare, which, of course, is based on Romneycare. (He neglects to mention that.) And now he's getting philosophical. This election is about the soul of America. Please. This isn't working. It's like he's just reciting lines that have been pre-approved by various focus groups. He's just ticking off the key bullets. Now he's attacking the "entitlement society." Now he's talking about the founding patriots. "Let us restore the greatness of America." He's all over the place. There's absolutely no coherence to this speech whatsoever. It's awful. And it's just Romney being Romney.

Happy, Republicans?

12:50 am: The website is ahead of Wolf Blitzer's wall. Santorum is now up by 27 votes, 29,892 to 29,865. But John King, who if nothing else can read numbers off a screen, is saying that the remaining precincts may favour Romney. We shall see.

12:52 am: Idiot Brit right-winger Piers Morgan, would-be Larry King Part Deux, just showed up. That's my cue. I'm done.

12:53 am: Stay tuned for much more 2012 election coverage here at The Reaction.

12:54 am: Good night, everyone.

**********

1:39 am: Dammit. I just can't resist. Romney has taken the lead, by a single vote -- 29,957 to 29,956. An outright win would certainly mean more to Santorum than to Romney, but, again, I'm not sure it matters all that much. It's a tie, and that's how it'll be reported.

1:41 am: Oh, now it's Santorum ahead again, but by just four votes -- 29,968 to 29,964.

1:42 am: Alright, enough. Good night.

The Iowa caucuses and the future of Mitt Romney

By Michael J.W. Stickings 

Who will win the Iowa caucuses today? Who knows? Right now, it's a too-close-to-call three-way race. Nate Silver:

A new Public Policy Polling survey in Iowa, conducted Saturday and Sunday, shows a virtual three-way tie in advance of the Iowa caucuses. Ron Paul has a nominal lead with 20 percent of the vote in the poll, followed by Mitt Romney at 19 percent and Rick Santorum at 18 percent.

Our forecast model, which combines the Public Policy Polling survey with other recent polls of the state, also shows an effective three-way tie, although it has Mr. Romney ahead by the slimmest of margins. The model projects Mr. Romney to receive 21.0 percent of the vote, followed by Mr. Paul at 20.6 percent and Mr. Santorum — whose numbers have been on the rise — at 19.3 percent.

It's pretty clear that Romney is the frontrunner and, yes, likely winner of the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. With Newt's dramatic collapse, there's just no one left who can rally the anti-Romney vote and secure enough conservative support to pose a serious challenge at this point. That can change, of course. What this race has shown us, if anything, is that things can change quickly. But, as of right now, it looks like it'll be Romney. Paul would pick up major momentum with a win, but he's widely loathed in the Republican Party and won't be able to follow up a strong showing in Iowa with similar performances in New Hampshire and South Carolina. Santorum is surging, but he's been focusing almost exclusively on Iowa and lacks the resources to be able to compete anywhere else (assuming the GOP is willing to go with such a far-right social conservative and theocrat, which it isn't). Newt appears to be done. And Perry and Bachmann are just too far back.

But is the glass half-full or half-empty for Romney?

A win in Iowa today would be huge for him. It wasn't so long ago, after all, that a win seemed like an impossibility -- and that even a strong showing seemed unlikely. But credit his ground campaign, built up over many years, as well as the concerted effort on the part of the moneyed party elites to clear the path for him by going after his rivals one by one: Perry and Gingrich, notably. And credit the embarrassing weakness of the whole field, and of his rivals individually. A strong, credible conservative would be slaughtering Romney. Instead, the whole lot of 'em have either fallen well short, risen and fallen quickly, or surging too late with little hope.

With a win, Romney would immediately cement his status as frontrunner, pick up significant momentum, and allow him to make the case that he is in fact sufficiently conservative to be the party's nominee, that in effect he's been vetted by the party faithful in the close confines of the Iowa caucuses. Even a strong second place behind Paul would be fine, as Paul is widely regarded as a renegade who can't win. (And in any event a Paul win would discredit the caucuses in the eyes of many Republicans, as well as in the eyes of the media, as an outlier that doesn't reflect where the party really is. Even before the first votes are cast, anti-Paul forces in the party have been making this case through the media.) A second-place finish behind Santorum would be a bit more challenging for him, though Romney would be able to right the ship quickly with a landslide win in New Hampshire. The problem is that Santorum would have emerged as the leading conservative alternative and as something of a credible contender.

Regardless of all this, Romney still faces an enormous hurdle going forward. Specifically, he still has the low ceiling of support that has plagued him throughout the entire campaign. I wrote about this in September, and nothing has really changed, just the names of his main rivals. He's still polling nationally in the 25-30 range -- and still faces a stiff challenge from Gingrich in South Carolina and Florida (assuming that Newt stays in and fights). Basically, Republicans by and large don't like him and don't want to vote for him. The elites are in his corner, more or less, but will leading conservatives like Dear Leader Rush put aside their loathing and accept him as their party's nominee? And even if he does win the nomination, largely by default, would conservatives be at all enthusiastic about him even when faced with Obama as the alternative?

Romney may win today, or may otherwise emerge looking fairly strong, but his future is hardly all that bright.

The Great Santorum Surge of December 2011

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Don't laugh.

Well, fine, go ahead.

Done? Okay.

Last week, I wrote that Rick Santorum will be the 2012 Republican nominee for president. I wasn't being serious, of course, but there's no denying Santorum's upward momentum, at least in Iowa, where he's left Perry and Bachmann behind and is now challenging Gingrich for third. (One poll, from Rasmussen (not the most credible pollster, but still), has him ahead of Newt.) And he's revving up the attacks on those ahead of him, particularly Ron Paul. For Santorum and his supporters, it's an exciting time indeed.

Who knows? Maybe he can win the damn thing. Or come damn close.

Yes, with Newt collapsing, Santorum could well finish third in Iowa, where what matters is appealing to (and turning out) a tiny fraction of the electorate (with even the vast majority of Republicans staying home from the caucuses), but even with a bit of a boost coming from such a relatively strong showing, that would be the end of the line for him. While he has understandably focused almost exclusively on Iowa, he has little to no organization anywhere else and remains for the most part a fringe candidate even in the right-wing Republican Party. He certainly has the conservative bona fides to appeal to much of the primary-voting base, but he's just too deranged for the establishment and too unelectable for the elites. Which is why he's never been taken seriously as a possible nominee. And why in national polls he remains a distant sixth.

So why is he surging? Obviously, he's benefitting from Newt's sudden fall and from a field that is, as we keep saying, embarassingly weak. And in Iowa, where he's got a fairly big name (prominent campaign, a couple of big-time endorsements), where else at this point are conservatives, and especially the social conservatives so prevalent in that state, to turn?

Reverse Newtmentum: What to make of Gingrich's fall in the polls?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

What goes up, must come down. (Even science-denying Republicans can't refute Newton. Well, they can, but it just makes them look like idiots.)

And The Newt is, apparently, coming down. Nate Silver:

The polling data I've seen over the past two or three days suggests that Newt Gingrich's momentum has stopped — and has probably reversed itself.

The most troubling numbers for Mr. Gingrich are in Iowa, where three recent polls show that his lead — which had been in double-digits just a week ago — has all but evaporated. One poll, in fact, from Rasmussen Reports, now shows him trailing Mitt Romney. The other two do not show gains for Mr. Romney, but do have Mr. Gingrich essentially tied with Ron Paul.

Honestly, I have no idea what to make of this anymore. Indeed, looking back over the Republican race so far, it's clear that making any sort of prediction was an act of folly. (It'll be Romney... no, Bachmann... no, Perry... no, Romney... no... well, you know the rest.) And it's been utterly futile trying to sort through the madness.

But it seemed that Newt, after months of running a seemingly pointless campaign, was in the right place at the right time. With no one else left to challenge Romney and unite the right against him (other than Ron Paul, who has his ardent followers but no chance of actually winning the nomination), it seemed that many Republicans were willing to give Gingrich a shot, if only by default. And so he surged up the polls, particularly after Cain dropped out, much to many people's surprise. And with so little time left before voting begins, it seemed that he might just be able to sustain his newfound popularity at least through the early states.

But now, this.

What are to make of it?

I don't think he's done. While his numbers are falling, some decline was inevitable as people got to know him better (and found things they didn't like), as his rivals turned their fire on him as the frontrunner (negativity came first from Paul, but Romney has picked up the attack in recent days), as his electability began to be called into question, and as the Republican elite/establishment (whatever you want to call it) began to panic over the inevitable disaster of Gingrich as the nominee, with both politicians (e.g., Pete King, Chris Christie) and pundits (e.g., Noonan, Will, Brooks, Gerson, Coulter, etc.) going on the anti-Newt offensive.

So while one way to look at it is that he's declining, another is that he's just levelling off at a more reasonable level of support, some of the early irrational enthusiasm wiped away.

Which is to say, he can still win Iowa, still run a strong second in New Hampshire, and still win South Carolina and Florida. If anything, his problem is not his poll numbers but his on-the-ground, get-out-the-vote campaigns, which were late getting going because he wasn't really a serious candidate until just recently. So it's possible he'll end up underperforming relative to expectations simply because of a lack of organization (and, relatively speaking, a lack of money). But maybe not. He's still the most viable non-Romney option the Republicans have, and we all know Republicans really don't want Romney as their nominee (other than some in the elite and those worried primarily about electability, and so certainly not the base, not most primary voters).

Look, we may well be witnessing "The Un-Newtening," as Jon Chait put it the other day (though a sudden influx of money may mean "The Re-Newtening"). I'm not sure. I'm not sure of anything when it comes to the ongoing craziness of the Republican race to challenge President Obama. For all I know, Chris Christie will be anointed the nominee at a brokered convention next year. I just don't think we can count out The Newt quite yet.

Newt Gingrich loves monogamy, hates gays

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The headline at Think Progress says it all: "Gingrich Pledges Not To Commit Infidelity A Third Time, Reaffirms Opposition To Marriage Equality."

He may be faking his anti-gay bigotry to win right-wing votes, but it's his fidelity pledge that's particularly amusing:

I also pledge to uphold the institution of marriage through personal fidelity to my spouse and respect for the marital bonds of others.

It's not so much his past infidelity that matters, it's his massive hypocrisy. As Melissa McEwan puts it, also responding to the TP headline:

Which just underlines what bullshit the unholy marriage between political conservatives (small government! no taxes!) and social conservatives (big Jesus! no homo!) really is. There's nothing politically conservative about forcing people to sign pledges about private consensual sex acts, or about arguing that the government should be in the business of telling people they can't marry a consenting partner of legal age.

Gingrich doesn't give a flying flunderton about this horseshit, except insomuch as it will help him win the GOP nomination. (Or impeach a president.) He's got the sexual ethics of a Republican with no sexual ethics.

It's embarrassing to watch these sad, socially stunted failosaurs bray about getting Gingrich to sign their morality yearbooks as if it matters, as if he cares. What fools. 

Newt is playing them, to be sure. While he'll say he's found "God," or some such nonsense, what he's really found is how to sucker morons to give him money... and, he's hoping, their vote.

Rand Paul slams Newt, says he's "not even a conservative"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Writing today at The Des Moines Register, extreme Teabagging Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, son of renegade libertarian Republican Ron Paul, pulls no punches in going after GOP presidential frontrunners Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich:

Unfortunately, while all Republican candidates would be an improvement over the present administration, two of the current frontrunners simply do not represent the tea party, the conservative movement, or the type of change our country desperately needs in 2012. 

Let me begin with the most obvious reasons:

Both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich supported the outrageous $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, bailouts — "one of the most unpopular government programs in American history," even according to President Obama's own Treasury Department.

Both Romney and Gingrich have been outspoken and unapologetic supporters of the individual mandate. This is the heart and soul of ObamaCare.

Since the tea party started as a reaction to Republicans who voted for TARP, and was strengthened into a national political force during the fight over ObamaCare, I believe this disqualifies both Romney and Gingrich from tea party support.

And then he specifically targets Gingrich, who "began his career as a Rockefeller Republican from the liberal wing of the party" and whose "heart is still there," who was a lobbyist for Freddie Mac, and... well, you get the picture. Basically, "Gingrich is not from the tea party" and "is not even a conservative." He's a member of "the Washington establishment" and "has been wrong on many of the major issues of the day."

Most of this is ridiculous. As a long-time lawmaker, Gingrich certainly has a more nuanced record than an ideologue like Paul, who just arrived on a scene a few years ago. And, sure, Gingrich has been pragmatic, allying with Democrats at times and also taking positions out of line with right-wing Republican orthodoxy, and particularly out of line with Tea Party extremism. But he's still a conservative, whatever his occasional lapses on issues such as climate change and immigration.

What's interesting here is, first, how Rand characterizes himself. He describes himself as "a U.S. senator elected from and by the tea party," not as a Republican. But what's also interesting is the severe litmus test Paul, one of the most influential Teabaggers, is applying to the GOP presidential race. If even Gingrich isn't conservative enough, and he's certainly more conservative than Romney, then what? Or, rather, who? Rick Perry is more theocrat than Teabagger. Michele Bachmann probably qualifies, but she's an also-ran at this point. So who else could there be?

Ah, yes, Papa Paul.

While the race has turned into a Gingrich-vs.-Romney battle, with Newt now pushing back against Mitt's attacks, Ron Paul is lingering as a solid third-place candidate. He won't win the nomination, but he has a loyal and intense following of libertarian Republicans and could do well enough in some states, including Iowa, to influence the outcome. Indeed, the latest RCP averages have him tied for second with Romney in Iowa at 17.4 (well back of Gingrich at 29.8) and running a solid third in New Hampshire (though also well back in South Carolina).

So perhaps Rand is just shilling for Ron, trying to make the case that Newt's not the right Tea Party choice. Perhaps he even understands, as Conor Friedersdorf does, that a Gingrich win would be a disaster for the Tea Party.

Whatever the case, there's no denying the ongoing influence of the Tea Party in the GOP and how unsettled the situation remains. Gingrich has emerged at just the right time, and a big win in Iowa followed by a strong showing in New Hampshire and a win in South Carolina and then Florida could very well propel him too far into the lead for anyone to catch up. But it's clear that a lot of Republicans, Rand Paul included, aren't happy with Gingrich, while the alternative, Romney, is even worse.

So what can they do? Keep promoting Ron Paul, perhaps, though Paul would be even less likely to be able to unite the party, regardless of what his fanatics think.

Really, though, is it any wonder Republicans are already in a state of near-panic? Denial may be holding them back, but reality is about to take over.

Iowa and the new Republican reality: Gingrich surges into the lead, Paul rises to second, Romney stumbles down to third

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Despite their undeniable significance, I don't want to make too much of the Iowa caucuses, let alone of a single poll still a month out from the vote, but what appears to be going on there reflects what's happening nationally.

As Jed Lewison reports at Kos, a new Des Moines Register poll shows Gingrich in the lead at 25 percent, with Paul in second at 18 percent and Romney in third at 16 percent, with Bachmann (8), Cain (8, but he's now out), Perry (6), Santorum (6), and Huntsman (2) well back.

Looking at polls going back to June, the trends are clear:

-- Gingrich is surging, up from just 7 percent in late October.

-- Paul has also improved, jumping up from 12 percent in late October. (Both he and Newt were at 7 percent in June.)

-- Romney has been steadily declining: 23 to 22 to 18 to 16 over the four polls.

As Lewison writes, "he's not only run into a polling ceiling, he's starting to lose ground... and he's losing it just as he's gearing up to try to win the state." I've been saying for a long time now that Romney has a low support ceiling. It may be getting lower, particularly with Gingrich emerging and Paul picking up steam. Romney could rise again if Gingrich falters (and if Newt self-destructs either by being himself or because people start paying attention and see him for what he is (and has been throughout his political career), but with so little time before Iowa and New Hampshire, that may not happen until it's too late, if ever.

-- The rest of them are done. In particular, Perry's hopes of a comeback. It's over.

I don't consider Paul a serious contender despite the intensity of the support for him. (For an example of that, see this piece I wrote for The Huffington Post on Friday. It looks at the ad Paul is running against Newt, but it's really about Gingrich as the frontrunner and the current state of the GOP race. But I included a throwaway line about how Paul will never be the nominee and that was enough to arouse the ire of Paul's fanatics. Check out the comments, including my responses.)

As we're seeing in Iowa and elsewhere, the race has turned into Gingrich vs. Romney. Given his low ceiling, Romney was depending on the anti-Romney conservative vote being split among a number of candidates -- that is, on no one rival emerging to unify the conservative vote. It looked bad for him when Perry surged into the lead after the Iowa Straw Poll over the summer, but that didn't last long, not with Perry doing so badly in the debates and generally embarrassing himself. It was fine when it was Cain as his main rival, because Cain wasn't really a serious contender.

But now, with Gingrich? It doesn't look good, and Gingrich, unlike Perry, seems to have what it takes to stay on top (assuming he keeps Bad Newt -- that is, the real Newt -- in check), at least long enough to win Iowa, place a strong second in New Hampshire, and then win South Carolina, building up his ground campaigns and securing the necessary support, both financial and otherwise, to pick up even more steam from there.

Romney should be worried. Very, very worried.

Iowa high school students debate Michele Bachmann over same-sex marriage

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Two Iowa high school students, Jane Schmidt and Ella Newell, admirably challenged Michele Bachmann on same-sex marriage (and her opposition to it) at a campaign event yesterday:

BACHMANN: Well, No. 1, all of us as Americans have the same rights. The same civil rights. And so that's really what government's role is, to protect our civil rights. There shouldn't be any special rights or special set of criteria based upon people's preferences. We all have the same civil rights.

JANE SCHMIDT: Then, why can't same-sex couples get married?

BACHMANN: They can get married, but they abide by the same law as everyone else. They can marry a man if they're a woman. Or they can marry a woman if they're a man.

JANE SCHMIDT: Why can't a man marry a man?

BACHMANN: Because that's not the law of the land.

Bachmann's legalistic opposition to same-sex marriage is silly. Is the law always right? What if the law says, for example, that Jews are not allowed to own property. Would Jews not being allowed to own property be right just because that's what the law is? Of course not. Law is convention. It is made by human beings and is therefore imperfect, and often wrong.

Now, same-sex marriage is actually legal in some states now, including Iowa. Does this mean that Bachmann is fine with it in Iowa but not in a state that forbids it? Of course not. She was being either ignorant, dishonest, or some combination of the two. In truth, she opposes it everywhere. Because she's a bigot. And all her talk of "tolerance," by which of course she means tolerance for "religious-based values" (i.e., bigotry), is bullshit.

Iowa scientists urge GOP presidential candidates to deny their climate change denialism

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Hill:

A group of 31 scientists from 22 universities and colleges in Iowa issued a statement to GOP presidential candidates on Tuesday, urging them to "acknowledge the science of climate change."

Yeah, good luck with that.

Anti-scientific ignorance, on climate change and pretty much everything else -- and more broadly the refusal to acknowledge reality, willful or otherwise -- is de rigueur these days in the Republican Party.

You might as well urge Penn State students to turn against Joe Paterno.

Has the Herman Cain bubble burst?

By Nicholas Wilbur

(Ed. note: The air is coming out of the bubble, and his time may well be up. Almost. And yet he's in the lead in Iowa, 28-21 over Romney. A lot can change, and will, before the Iowa caucuses, and Cain will decline, but conservative Republicans are still looking for someone, anyone to be their anti-Romney. And for now Cain's it, even more than Perry. -- MJWS)

**********

You know what they say about living by the sword.

In politics, the same goes for polls.

As Rick Perry realized when the mere prospect of his entrance into the 2012 Republican presidential race made him an automatic frontrunner immediately following the announcement of his candidacy, polls are flattering. In Perry's case, the polls proved to the pundits and the naysayers that he could be a contender, that he could win the GOP nomination, and that people liked him – or at least that they liked him more than they like the other guy, which, in the GOP primary race, actually meant that they didn't dislike him as much as they disliked the other guy.

And then the polls suddenly proved the opposite.

Once the media sinks its talons into a candidate, which is what happens when public opinion polls show him or her as a potential frontrunner, every aspect of his private and public life is opened up to mass dissection, dissemination, speculation, and criticism. Every piece of legislation he backed, every gaffe or false statement he makes, every twitch, stutter, and scratch goes instantly viral.

It happened to Perry. It happened to Michele Bachmann when she was briefly considered a contender in the 2012 Republican presidential race, and it's what is now happening with Herman Cain, whose straw poll victory in Florida a while back turned him into a top-tier candidate almost overnight.

Cain went from being ignored by both the media and the other candidates to being an instant political celebrity. Needless to say, the scrutiny hasn't done him any favors.

Not only has he caught fire for his opinions about Muslims, his claim that poor people should blame themselves for not being rich, and his statement that the United States should build an electric fence along its border with Mexico, the last week of Cain news coverage centered on the heart of the pizza executive's campaign platform – his signature 9-9-9 tax proposal.

During the GOP debate in Nevada Tuesday night, the 9-9-9 plan was eviscerated by every candidate on stage, from the frontrunner on down.

Perry's response was unlike his other comments throughout the debate – and by that I mean coherent.

"Herman," he said, "I love ya brother, but let me tell you somethin'. You don't have to have a big analysis to figure this out. Go to New Hampshire where they don't have a sales tax, and you're fixin' to give 'em one. They're not interested in 9-9-9."

Rick Santorum, in his usual "family values" pitch, said he opposed the 9-9-9 plan essentially because it didn't do anything to encourage married couples to have children.

Bachmann, who had inferred during the last debate that the 9-9-9 plan was satanic, said Tuesday night that she opposed the proposal because it would give Congress a 9-percent sales tax, and "how long will it take a liberal president and a liberal congress to run that up to maybe 90 percent? Who knows?" (A technicality here: If Cain were elected president – the only chance the 9-9-9 plan would have of becoming a national policy – there wouldn't be a "liberal president" in office.)

Ron Paul said "the worst part about" the 9-9-9 plan is that "it's regressive."

"A lot of people aren't paying any taxes," Paul said, "and I like that. [But] I don't think we should even things up by raising taxes. So it is a regressive tax, so it's very, very dangerous."

Try as he may, Cain just couldn't convince anyone on the stage that the independent analysts who said his plan would raise taxes on 84 percent of households were wrong. As evidence of his distinguished colleagues' ignorance, Cain relied on a rather interesting cliché.

"This is an example of mixing apples and oranges," he said. "The state tax is an apple. We are replacing the current tax code with oranges. So it's not correct to mix apples in oranges."

"Once again, unfortunately," he said at another point in the debate, "none of my distinguished colleagues who have attacked me tonight understand the plan... It's apples and oranges."

Mitt Romney, the current frontrunner, asked Cain, "Herman, are you saying that the state taxes will also go away?"

"No," Cain replied. "That's an apple. We're replacing a bunch of oranges."

"So, then Governor Perry was right?"

"No," Cain said. "He wasn't. He was mixing apples and oranges."

Obviously amused, Romney asked, "Well, but, will the people in Nevada not have to pay a Nevada sales tax and in addition pay the 9 percent sales tax?"

"Governor Romney," Cain said, as annoyed as the rest of the field was entertained, "you're doing the same thing they're doing. You're mixing apples and oranges. You're going to pay the state sales tax no matter what. Whether you throw out the existing code and you put in our plan, you're still going to pay that... That's apples and oranges."

"Right," Romney replied, "and I'm going to get a bushel basket that has apples and oranges in it, because I'm going to pay both taxes, and the people of Nevada are going to pay both taxes."

Moderator Anderson Cooper then put the question to Newt Gingrich: "Speaker Gingrich, you have said in recent days that Cain's 9-9-9 plan would be a harder sell than he lets on. How so?"

"Well," Gingrich said, "you just watched it."

Before the debate began, L.A. Times reporter Michael Hiltzik wrote that "Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan would probably be seen as just another cockamamie tax scheme were it not for his surprising ascendance to front-runner ranks in the Republican Party primary. Yet one of the more interesting questions raised by the plan hasn’t gotten much attention: What accounts for the enduring popularity of such tax nostrums, when they never pencil out?"

A few hours later, Hiltzik got his answer when "the enduring popularity" of 9-9-9 met Earth.

So has the Cain poll bubble burst?

(Cross-posted at Muddy Politics.)