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.

Iowa Caucus - a Defense of Mediocrity

By Capt. Fogg

"Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance?"

-Roman Hruska-

_________________________

So the Iowa caucusoids can't really decide between Stepford Candidate Mitt who will say anything to ingratiate and hopes you have no memory, or Ricky Santorum, the subatomic particle with less mass than a neutrino. As of this morning there is only an 8 vote difference between the two and CNN.com is portraying Santorum's loss as a victory. If there's anything interesting at all, or any inference to be drawn from this contest, it's that relatively moderate Jon Huntsman might have been better off joining another party entirely. Rarely has any contestant gone so unnoticed, lost in the glare of idiocy, mendacity and derangement.

This race seems to have nothing to do with qualifications in terms of character, experience, education or cognitive function: it's more about seducing the stupid, the ignorant and the marginal people, enraged because they are marginal. As a non-Republican, my preference in what is essentially a tie would be Santorum -- and of course any other connoisseur of circus freak shows would look forward with gleeful anticipation to watching that raving idiot contend with his Democratic opponent's measured words.

Does the Iowa Caucus really mean anything? I think it does. It means, for one thing, that the word Conservative means no more than it did when Senator Hruska tried to sell mediocrity as a virtue to get G. Harrold Carswell appointed to the Supreme Court and get us to overlook his distaste for Women's rights and his support for segregation (and perhaps the aggressive homosexual proclivities that landed him in jail and the hospital on several occasions.)

No, Romney isn't that bad and Santorum may not be either but I have to suspect that somewhere, some wax museum is missing a dummy and some circus side show is missing a freak.


(Cross posted from Human Voices)

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?

It's been a bad month for Newt

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Ron Paul has surged ahead in Iowa, Mitt Romney remains well ahead in New Hampshire, and Gingrich has been on a steady decline:

After enjoying 14- to 15-percentage-point leads over Mitt Romney in early December, Newt Gingrich is now statistically tied with Romney in national Republican preferences for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination: 26% for Gingrich vs. 24% for Romney. This follows a steady decline in support for Gingrich in the past 10 days.

I wrote about this "Reverse Newtmentum" last Friday, both here and at The Huffington Post. Here's some of what I wrote:

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).

I stand by most of that (even if, as I admit in the post, I'm just not sure of anything anymore when it comes to this GOP race). After all, while he's behind in Iowa, he's still a little ahead of Romney nationally. The problem, for him, is that a third-place finish in Iowa, behind Paul and Romney, would be a disaster, perhaps the end of his campaign (not least because he just doesn't have the ground campaigns to pull out victories state-by-state unless he generates significant early momentum). And that's how it's looking now.

Although, and this is really the one positive for Newt in all this, Romney's support has remained flat, indicating that the large anti-Romney majority in the GOP remains unconvinced -- and, more, unwilling to support Mitt. But if Romney hasn't been able to take advantage of Newt's decline, he nonetheless benefits from the deeply divided anti-Romney vote. Unless Newt can pull that support back from those to whom it has gone in recent days (a bit to each of Bachmann, Perry, and Santorum, it would appear), Romney has the clearest path to the nomination, if only by default. (How this would play out is another matter. Are Republicans really prepared to nominate someone who can't even crack 30 percent support -- and who is deeply loathed by the base?)

Remember when Newt said that "it's very hard not to look at the recent polls and think that the odds are very high I'm going to be the nominee"? That was on December 1. While I'd love to see The Newt as the nominee (because he'd be a disaster in the general election), it's hard not to feel a certain Schadenfreude in observing his dramatic fall. It really couldn't happen to a more deserving guy.

Rick Santorum still hopeful in Iowa -- and why is that again?

By Richard K. Barry

My favorite headline of the day is "Rick Santorum predicts last minute surge." You almost never see headlines that read, like, "Rick Santorum says he's 'whistling past the graveyard in Iowa' and may drop out soon," although Pawlenty's wife pretty much said that kind of thing about Tim's campaign just before he went away. I thought that was refreshing at the time.

I have a bit of a soft spot for Santorum and Huntsman, who are the only two candidates not yet to have actually had a national breakout moment. Even undeclared posers like Trump and Palin have had those. (You might say that Ron Paul has also languished, but his consistent group of true believers at least gives him something to work with).

It's true that Santorum got the best news of his campaign a few days ago when Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz endorsed him. Speaking of his preferred candidate, Schultz said, "I tend to like underdogs, and slow and steady wins the race." If Schultz likes slow, he's got to love Santorum, whose campaign has also been steadily weak.

Just to pick one survey for the sake of illustration, The Washington Post and ABC News conducted a poll between November 30 and December 4, with a random sample of 858 potential Iowa Republican caucus-goers.

Among likely caucus-goers, Gringrich leads with 33%; Romney and Paul are tied for second with 18%; Perry is at 11%; Bachmann is at 8% -- and then comes Rick Santorum at 7%. He is ahead of Huntsman, but only Huntsman, who is trailing the pack at 2%. Huntsman does beat "none of the above" (barely) but trails "no opinion" by a point.

As I've commented previously, there are many reasons candidates with no realistic chance of getting a presidential nomination choose to run. It's always interesting to guess when each might drop out, or who is going to be next. Just guessing, but are Bachmann and Santorum out after Iowa and Huntsman after New Hampshire? Paul will stay in because he is a zealot with a message, and I have no idea what to make of Perry. They say he can always find money, so maybe that keeps him in past his due date.

Then again, they are all so addicted to seeing their names in the paper, there is no telling how long we'll have to suffer the larger pack.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Ron Paul goes negative on Newt in Iowa

By Richard K. Barry

Well, this is fun. Ron Paul is the first of the GOP contenders to go negative on Newt in Iowa with an ad purporting to show what Paul's team is calling Gingrich's "serial hypocrisy."

Jesse Benton, a Ron Paul advisor, had this to say about the ad:

We wanted to ensure this ad reached as many voters as possible, to debunk the myth that the Newt we are seeing on the 2012 campaign trail is the conservative he has been touted to be all along.

The voters are looking for authentic conservatives who are able to show a decades-long career of consistently walking the walk of Constitutional principles, limited government, and promoting sound economic policies. Ron Paul is the only Republican presidential candidate with that record.

Ron Paul may be whack job libertarian, but he's not going to be pushed around by some poser like Gingrich. No, sir.

You know, politicians are just like other people. Some of them are generally well liked, even by their opponents, and others not so much. Which camp do you supposed Newt fits in?

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

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.

No money, no ideas: Ed Rollins on Michele Bachmann

By Michael J.W. Stickings

ABC News:

Michele Bachmann has "run out of money and ideas" and can no longer expect to win in Iowa, her former campaign manager told ABC News on Monday.

Ed Rollins, who left the campaign in September, said the Minnesota congresswoman had backed off earlier comments by her campaign that Iowa was a "must-win" state because she lacked the finances, campaign structure, and ideas to win the first-in-the-nation caucus state.

"She's still saying the same things she said in the first the debate. There's no substance. She says, 'I'm going to repeal Obamacare.' But she's been saying that from Day 1. I told her: That's your Tea Party speech, now you have to say what you’re going to do next."

Rollins saw the writing on the wall a long time ago and was quick to get the hell out while the gettin' was good. But didn't he see this coming all along? Did he really think Bachmann had potential, that she actually had serious ideas? Perhaps he thought he could mold her -- and perhaps all he's doing now is saying that she's nothing without him.

And yet, doesn't he sell her short? She's not just about repealing the Affordable Care Act, after all. What about converting gays? She and her husband are really into that. What about that anti-gay, anti-porn pledge? Was she not serious about that? What about her affinity for "intelligent design"? And all of her conspiracy theories, like the one about the dollar giving way to some international currency and about the U.S. giving way to the nefarious global economy? And what about her various crazy right-wing views generally? And her radical fundamentalist theocratism?

Hey, you can't say there aren't ideas there. Crazy, extreme ones, yes, if also fairly mainstream Republican ones.

It seems to me that Rollins, who obviously made an embarrassingly bad move going to work for her, is just trying to excuse himself of any and all responsibility for the pointless mess her campaign has become.

Bachmann surges past Romney in Iowa

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The RCP Average still has Romney on top in Iowa, if only barely, but a new poll by The Iowa Republican has Bachmann in the lead for the first time, 25 to 21 over Romney, with Pawlenty and Cain well back at 9.

To some of us -- Richard Barry and me, for example -- this isn't at all surprising. We have long thought that Bachmann has impressive political skills (whatever her right-wing craziness) and could do well in this race, particularly in the absence of another viable candidate on the right. And she's doing well generally in a one-on-one race against Romney, a race without, say, a Perry or a Palin to drain some of her conservative support.

Romney is still the frontrunner and perhaps the favourite. He has a solid ground campaign across the country, will win New Hampshire, has the support of much of the establishment (and monied interests that back the GOP), and is a solid if uninspiring candidate, particularly with the economy at the center of the debate.

But Bachmann could easily win Iowa, surprise with a strong showing in New Hampshire, and then, should she be more or less alone on the right, cruise into South Carolina with the wind at her back.

The concerns for Romney are many, but one of them may be that he has a fairly low ceiling. He has about one-quarter support of Republicans nationally right now, but what if his ceiling isn't all that much higher than that? What if the opposition to Romney is so strong, mainly from the grassroots (Tea Party, "social conservatives," etc.), that he just can't get over the hump in a one-on-one race against a more bona fide conservative like Bachmann? And it's possible that it will eventually turn into just that, if Pawlenty fails to emerge as a compromise candidate and if the conservative vote isn't divided (that is, if Perry and Palin don't run and if the conservatives in the race now, namely Gingrich and Santorum, continue to lag way behind with little support). (I'm counting Huntsman out altogether, though in my opinion he's by far the strongest of the bunch.)

Indeed, as Jon Chait noted yesterday, Bachmann is a bit like Obama in 2007:

Obama trailed badly in the national polls throughout 2007. But he had high favorability and seemed to do well among those voters most attuned to the campaign, which suggested that as elections neared and voters paid more attention, he had the potential to win over voters who were not paying attention months and months before any vote.

And, indeed, Bachmann's "lead expands when the sample is confined to voters paying a lot of attention." Which is to say, Republicans like her more the more they get to know her, with her support coming to a great extent from those who are most engaged in the process -- the people, that is, who decide primaries, the hardcore grassroots.

Will this continue? Maybe not. Maybe Bachmann has her own ceiling. Maybe another big-name conservative will get in the race. Maybe Romney would beat her in a one-on-one race. But what's evident, it seems to me, is that Bachmann is for real.

All hail the Obama buzz

By Creature

Three articles. Three ledes. A legend is born.

[Thursday night Obama took a] "big step," [he] "swept to victory," [his win was] "historic," [his campaign] "caught fire," [the guy took a] "major stride," [yes, it was an] "historic bid," [sure, the man] "rolled to victory," [dude, he] "swept past" [her], [while] "pushing" [her away]."

Now that's some good press.

Bottom line for NH (and beyond): if Hillary goes negative, as Bill suggests, she will be finished. I'm not saying negative ads don't work. I'm not saying whisper campaigns don't work. I am saying, Hillary raining on Obama's coronation won't work. This is bigger than Hillary. Gasp.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

Rachel Maddow: Hillary Apologist and Obama Basher

By J. Thomas Duffy

"...I see a lot of shades of George Bush as a candidate in what we’re hearing from Obama ... I think that Obama learned a little bit about how to campaign from what George Bush did. I hope that he would be, of course, a better president than Bush has been though ..."

Who's paying Rachel Maddow's salary, MSNBC, Air America Radio, or the Hillary Clinton Campaign?

The Liberal/Progressive's rising media darling was wearing her Hillary on her sleeve last evening, late into the coverage as a panel member on the MSNBC broadcast of the post-Iowa Caucus discussions.

When you Google "Rachel Maddow", you (or at least my search provided) get 192,000 results.

Looking over the first 100, there's nary a negative word about Ms. Maddow, not even from the Freakshow denizens, Dittoheads, or the Sludge Reports' flying monkies.

And if she is a Hillary fan and supporter, God bless her, but was it part of her assignment with MSNBC last evening to bash Dem Iowa Caucus winner Barack Obama?

Rachel Maddow as Obama Basher

From the MSNBC transcript;

OLBERMANN: Rachel Maddow, the subject of strong views. Did not the strong views get us the president we have as well? Is there not fire to be played with in that category.

MADDOW: Well, it’s interesting. I actually feel like although I like Obama a lot more than I like George Bush as a politician and I guess probably as a person, I see a lot of shades of George Bush as a candidate in what we’re hearing from Obama. In that what Obama’s actually offering are fairly liberal policies, but spoken in language and delivered in a style that’s very moderate and that’s actually kind of post partisan in tone.

We don’t think of George Bush’s presidency as having been that way. But as a candidate, that’s exactly what he was. He was proposing very conservative policies, but in a conciliatory, compassionate, post partisan, can’t we all just get along kind of way. And that’s why people I think maybe ended up surprised at the way he governed. I think that Obama learned a little bit about how to campaign from what George Bush did. I hope that he would be, of course, a better president than Bush has been though.

Whoa, there girl!

Obama is Bush?

If fellow panel member Pat Buchanan said it, you would, well, brush it off, knowing what a whack-job Buchanan is.

And even being cautious about over-praise, being it was only one night, one event, but tying Obama to Bush?

Did the Hillary Campaign hack into her earpiece? Was she reading off the next morning's Hillary Campaign Talking Points?

Because, before she bashed Obama, you could see the hair on her neck rising, when host Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and other panel members were talking in tones of Hillary being finished.

Rachel, The Hillary Apologist

MATTHEWS: This country moves in a strange pattern. In 1870, we gave African-Americans, men, the right to vote, at least in the Constitution. Obviously Jim Crowe got in the way of that for 100 years. But it was written down into law, the amendment to our Constitution, African-Americans, former slaves, will be voting citizens of the United States.

Women got to vote, which is always interesting, 50 years later. So there’s something perhaps primordial about the willingness of this country to at least, in theory, extend the franchise, the presidency, even, to an African-American rather than a woman. That is the interesting question mark that this Hillary Clinton campaign raises.

Let’s go to the panel with this hot potato, starting with Rachel Maddow.

Rachel, and then Howard, I want you, and Pat, and, of course, Gene Robinson, all of you from your different perspectives, what is it about America that here we are in 2008, finally picking an African-American with a real shot to be president of the United States, and a woman just got a very bad night in Iowa?

Rachel?

MADDOW: I think that you’re calling this a really bad night for Hillary too early. I think that we need to see how close it’s going to be. And if ultimately the results are a three-way tie or look close to it, or Barack Obama wins tightly, that’s a story. I think it matters.

I don’t see this as a huge rejection of Hillary if she doesn’t come in with a big win, honestly. I know you see it differently.

MATTHEWS: You mean, the fact that two-thirds of the Democratic Party voted against her isn’t a rejection?

MADDOW: Two-thirds of the Democratic Party will have voted against all of the candidates if it comes in as a three-way tie, Chris. That’s the point.

The issue, if it comes out it’s a really close race, it’s going to be close heading into New Hampshire as well. And I think we discount that at our peril.

If Barack Obama, as you guys are projecting is going to be the winner, I think that’s the America we all want to live in. I think it’s an amazing day for the country and it’s great. I don’t know if it means that he gets the nomination ultimately, but it’s an exciting, historic day for the country.

OLBERMANN: Let me throw something in from the decision desk. Edwards and Clinton are in, just apropos what you’re saying, Rachel, a very tight race for second in the race for the state Democratic delegate equivalent. Those are the numbers we’re seeing so far.

And again, NBC News has projected, as you heard, Barack Obama as the winner of this Iowa caucus at 36 percent. Those other numbers are as close as you would suggest they would be, 31 percent and 31 percent.

MATTHEWS: But Howard—well, Rachel, I’ll go back to you so you can have a response here.

From the beginning of this year in the polling we’ve noticed that Hillary has been ahead of Obama all year. So she can’t claim to be somehow a comeback kid or someone who, you know, somehow never had a chance. She had a big chance in Iowa and she’s lucky to get second.

MADDOW: No, I think it may be a more comfortable place for her to be running from, to be able to say, I’m fighting for this, and to maybe play the gender card in a big way, to say we have got to fight in order to get a woman in the White House in a way that she couldn’t have played that way had she been in an inevitable front-runner. So, I mean, I think it’ll be real interesting to see how the Clinton campaign responds to this. They’re going to have to come up with something creative, but it’s not the worst position for her to be in.

Funny, I missed the PR this morning, from the Hillary camp, telling us how thrilled they are, going into New Hampshire in five days, from a third-place finish in Iowa.

And I didn't see Big Bill, on camera, extolling how coming in third-place in Iowa was the best strategic way for his wife to start off on getting the nomination.

It has been reported that Ms. Maddow has received a tryout from MSNBC (she's been appearing on the network with greater frequency the past few months), for a possible show, possibly replacing the He-Man, Tucker Carlson

If that is the case, please, someone at MSNBC, take away the HRC pom-poms before she goes on-air.


















(Cross Posted at The Garlic)