Based on the reporting in this Yahoo News piece, Mitt Romney hasn’t been doing any legwork whatsoever in South Carolina. He has one office and three paid staffers working in the state. It makes me wonder what the hell he is doing with his money advantage. He traveled to South Carolina last Friday to receive the endorsement of the governor, but his overall level of endorsements in the Palmetto State has plummeted in comparison to four years ago:
The most telling sign of the uphill battle Romney faces in South Carolina is the skepticism he faces among many leading Republicans who backed his bid four years ago. At this point in the 2008 campaign, Romney had announced more than 100 endorsements among key public officials, political operatives and fundraisers in the state. By comparison, he has announced fewer than 10 endorsements in the state, including [Gov. Nikki] Haley’s, this year. And many of his key staffers from 2008 remain neutral.
Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich, who truly has no money to speak of, has nearly four times as many paid staffers in South Carolina.
Making predictions is a bit of fool’s game at this point. I mean, how better to make myself look stupid than to make some really bad predictions about what will happen in Iowa? What we’re seeing is a late surge from Ron Paul, who everyone recognizes has the premier ground game in the Hawkeye State. I’m inclined to go ahead and predict that he will do no worse than second place. Gingrich seems to be slipping and could fall out of the top three. Romney seems to be moving around in his usual range of 20-25%, but some polls show him as low as eighteen percent. And Rick Santorum is picking up some steam and could leave Hunstman and Bachmann in his dust. Rick Perry is a wildcard. He’s polling in the low double digits, and he could move up to third or drop down to sixth, or finish anywhere in between.
I’m a believer in late momentum, and on that score it appears that Paul and Santorum are the ones set to exceed expectations, while Gingrich and Bachmann are set to disappoint. Right now, I expect the following order in Iowa: 1. Ron Paul 2. Mitt Romney 3. Newt Gingrich 4. Rick Santorum 5. Rick Perry 6. Michele Bachmann 7. Jon Huntsman.
Even small news events can reshuffle the deck, and I expect plenty of news events, but this is my prediction as of tonight. So, what would this result do in New Hampshire?
Most obviously, it would kill all hope for Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry to do well there. It would also cause some erosion in Jon Huntman’s position, which has been on the uptick lately. Newt Gingrich would struggle to explain his collapse. Rick Santorum might get some new looks. And Ron Paul would create a full-blown identity crisis for the Grand Old Party.
The most compelling story lines would be:
1. Can Ron Paul be stopped in New Hampshire?
2. Will Gingrich’s twenty-point leads in South Carolina and Florida disappear if he can’t finish in the top two?
3. Will Jon Huntsman or Rick Santorum win third place?
4. Will Rick Perry drop out?
The answers, I suspect, will be ‘Yes,’ Yes,’ ‘Jon Huntsman,’ and ‘no.’
When things move to South Carolina, we should be dealing with a situation where the first two contests ended with Paul-Romney-Gingrich and Romney-Paul-Gingrich. Michele Bachmann will have dropped out, bolstering Santorum. And Rick Perry and Jon Huntsman will need breakthroughs to keep their campaigns alive.
Santorum’s Catholic brand of social conservatism in not as good a fit for South Carolina as Rick Perry’s, but Santorum will have more momentum and is a better campaigner. Romney and Paul are terrible fits for South Carolina, each for their own unique reasons. Romney hasn’t done the legwork and his Mormon faith and liberal past are suspect. Ron Paul has nothing in common with South Carolina’s martial spirit. I think Newt Gingrich has a real chance to win there and recover his mojo. If he does, he should win Florida as well. But the Nevada caucuses will be a big question mark. They could go to Romney based on the heavy Mormon presence there, or they could go to Ron Paul based on his strengths in caucus states and the appeal of his libertarian message in the Old West. If things go as I have described, with Romney only winning in New Hampshire, and losing in South Carolina and Florida, I think he will be desperate to win in Nevada. If he doesn’t, we could finish the first five contests with Ron Paul having won in Iowa and Nevada, Newt Gingrich having won in South Carolina and Florida, and Romney having won only in New Hampshire.
That’s kind of how I see things going right now. If I’m right, it should be a three-man race from that point on. Of course, Romney, Gingrich, and Paul are all incredibly divisive personalities within the Republican Party. None of them are even as broadly acceptable as John McCain, let alone Bob Dole. What I am seeing in my crystal ball is kind of a train wreck.
Right now the media is unloading with both barrels about the newsletters. I don’t yet know what kind of impact they will have, but if Paul manages to win Iowa despite them, he will be a lot stronger. He needs Gingrich to disappoint in Iowa. A strong second for Gingrich will make it tough to compete in South Carolina. A distant 3rd, or better yet, a surprise 3rd place finish for Santorum/Perry with Gingrich in 4th would be perfect.
Then (I hope) a strong second in NH. In south Carolina, Paul needs a 3-4 man race to have a respectable showing. At least it’s an open Primary and indys could help him.
Florida will be his worst state.
As for Nevada, where I live and where I caucused for Paul in ’08, it will be tough to beat Romney. We were overwhelmed with Romney supporters. I assume it was a Mormon thing, but don’t know for sure. Paul managed 14% in Nevada last time which was second place to Romney’s 50% (IIRC) He could double that this time, but that still looses to Romney.
This will not be a quick primary season. Given how delegates are apportioned this time, it could easily be a 3 way fight all the way to California (June 5)
The plus side is that Paul can win Texas and is pretty popular in Cali.
BooMan,
I love it when you talk sexy.
.
BooMan? Sexy?
Photoshopping: not always good. But usually funny!
LOL,
He writes this great post and we take it OT within the hour.
nalbar
Words are open to interpretation, but slick, oiled abs are universally appealing.
I think this only bolsters his case.
It’s like I am not even permitted to sleep.
Oh, my. 🙂
Oh my.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2ALsvU50wQ
well played, sir
I can’t disagree with any of this, but want to add a couple points about Huntsman’s long-term prospects. Basically if he does place in the top 3 in NH, then he’s out. I may be mistaken but afaik to date he’s still operating on money borrowed from his dad.
A strong showing in NH, where he seems to be having the closest thing to momentum that he’s got, could bring enough money to keep him alive until Nevada, where he could really upset Mitt’s advantage with the Mormons.
This assumes that he can afford a poor showing in SC, which is probably inevitable. If he doesn’t commit too many resources there he might be able to last until Nevada at least.
Basically, the longer he lasts in this contest, the more he helps to undermine Mitt, hopefully to the point where he can’t secure a solid early victory.
They probably better keep him away from the Twitters.
That is, if he doesn’t place in the top 3 in NH, then he’s out. 3rd place may not even be good enough.
ROFLMAO
Call it that “ain’t gonna lose again” attitude. Also meshes with all of those pork barrel military bases. And South Carolina still has the “bumb plant”.
And you worry about North Korea! 😉
For Ron Paul, it all depends on which the good ole boys think is more important–weed or war.
But how will all those transplanted suburbanites in the rings around the major cities vote? And the Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Catholics?
Methinks Nikki Haley is running for VP already. And likely showing that the Tea Party and Mama Grizzly endorsements hid the usual establishment Republican politician.
Isn’t she a koch-head stealth candidate?
Most likely. But not interested in being a puppet on a string like Scott Walker.
And you worry about North Korea! 😉
Oh Lord, that’s funny.
South Carolina: too small to be a country, too large to be an insane asylum.
It’s only permissible to make statements like that if you’re born there.
The point is underneath that.
You have military from all over the country in huge military bases in South Carolina. You have transplants managing a lot of the corporate installations there. You have Aiken, a major watering hole and retirement spot for the horsey set. And the out-of-state retirees at Hilton Head and other resorts. Only 31% live in rural areas like the ones folks driving from NY to FL on I-95 see.
From the GA line to the NC line along I-85 in the Upstate is almost solid suburb and small punctuated by the cities of Greenville and Spartanburg. And those are the Republican strongholds that are the base for Lindsey Graham, Jim DeMint, and Trey Gowdy.
Another is Lexington County, the suburban county across the Congaree River from Columbia and Nikki Haley’s base. And the northern anchor of “You Lie” Joe Wilson’s base; the southern anchor being Beaufort, Parris Island, and Hilton Head Island.
Most of the 31% of folks who live in rural areas are represented by Rep. James Clyburn, the sole Democrat.
Mittens is probably skipping South Carolina – perhaps the least promising state in the country for him – and concentrating on Florida.
I don’t think the vote in Iowa does much in New Hampshire, at all. They are two very different states running two very different elections.
Iowa rewards people who have a good ground game and people who appeal to evangelicals. Romney is expected to do well, but not great there because his money advantage should get his people to the polls. Paul is expected to do well there because his people get themselves to the polls. Both men performed better than average in caucus events in 2008 because of the skewed population that shows up.
Now, if Romney loses New Hampshire, he’s in big trouble. It’s his backyard and it’s filled with socially moderate, pro-business, secular Republicans. Losing narrowly to Paul would be bad but not catastrophic, since Paul appeals to the “Live free or Die” crowd. If he loses to Gingrich, he’s done. Likewise in Nevada.
On the other hand if Romney wins in South Carolina, he’s got it made, since he’ll have proven he can win over socially conservative Republicans.
But my guess is that none of these states will resolve the race for the Republican nomination. We’ll have to wait until March 6th.
The result in Iowa killed Bill Bradley’s lead in New Hampshire. It also, ironically, killed Obama’s lead in New Hampshire. The Iowa Caucuses also ruined Howard Dean’s lead in New Hampshire, although that was admittedly a bit more complicated.
The results in Iowa heavily influence what happens in New Hampshire. It’s just not as simple as saying that doing well in Iowa will help you in New Hampshire. It can have the opposite effect.
This is completely untrue. Neither man was leading in the polls in New Hampshire prior to the vote in Iowa.
Before the Iowa caucuses on January 3rd, 2008, Hillary Clinton was leading Barack Obama in New Hampshire polls, by an average of 4 points. In the final tally, Clinton beat Obama by 3 points. The only time Obama was leading was in a tiny polling surge immediately afterwards. That surge failed to materialize at the ballot box. So how did Iowa kill Obama’s lead there?
Likewise, before the Iowa caucuses of January 24, 2000, Gore had already moved ahead of Bradley in New Hampshire. http://www.people-press.org/2000/01/28/bradley-deficit-daunting-bush-closer/
And as for Dean he had had a Gingrich-like surge in the national polls, peaking in mid-December 2003 at around 30%. Before the Iowa caucuses, he’d already lost at least 5% from his surge, nationally.
Re Rick Perry — I may be unduly influenced by Public Policy Polling’s numbers, but PPP keeps surveying Perry and finds that GOP voters really, really don’t like him, despite his wingnuttery. So I think he’s gone after one of the first three contests, probably after the first two. His numbers, I think, are going to be abysmal.
Yes, I am predicting (somewhat boldly, I think) that Rick Santorum will finish ahead of Perry in Iowa. That won’t help Perry rise above the 1.5% he’s polling in New Hampshire.
Unless things pick up dramatically for him in South Carolina, he’s out.
I wonder if this cycle evolves to the point where the establishment Republicans decide they would rather go with Obama for the next four years because they have been able to work with him on so many issues and let the far right nutters nominate one of not-Romneys and go down in a Goldwater type fashion?
This would enable them to sieze back power from the tea partiers within the GOP. Problem is there are so many not-Romneys that Mitt remains viable with money as the not-Romneys fight over who will emerge as his opponent. There has to be establishment types that feel they really have lost control of the monster they have created and may see this as a way of destroying it.
Ron Paul places 1st or 2nd in both Iowa and New Hampshire. The media, not taking his chances seriously, will also cover the top 2 non-Paul candidates to emerge.
One is Newt, still looking to place in the top Iowa 3, but his red meat won’t be as popular in NH.
If Romney can take 2nd or 3rd in Iowa, he probably makes it to the top 2 in New Hampshire. But if not, that ever-elusive “sane NH Rethug” voter is going to give Huntsman a longing look. Beating the Romneybot in NH will make Huntsman the “comeback kid” of this cycle. And Huntsman does well only by kicking the Mittster where it hurts.
So going into South Carolina, the establishment candidate will be Romney or Huntsman. The base candidate will be Gingrich. And here’s where Paul’s appeal finds its ceiling.
SC will probably be decided by a random debate comment, a Jim DeMint defacto endorsement, a religious rant, who knows what.
But I see no risk of being made a fool for predicting this: you can’t set aside enough popcorn for January 2012.
NH polling data atm has Romney ahead of Huntsman by roughly 3:1, but that’s mainly over the last month or so. While it’s true that Huntsman is inching up a little, Romney has gone down by 10-12 points, due largely to gains by Gingrich and Paul.
At the very best, I could see Huntsman possibly doubling his polls to about 20%. Let’s say this comes entirely at Romney’s expense. In that case, Huntsman doesn’t win but he tips NH to either Gingrich or Paul. Paul is up slightly and Newt is slipping, but atm both are roughly tied with Newt slightly ahead.
Where does a disenchanted Newt voter go? Romney’s unacceptable; that’s the point of supporting Newt in the first place. Huntsman and Paul are each in their own way antithetical to the Newt voter. So as predicted above, I’d say Santorum benefits as Newt continues to slide, and maybe a point or two go to Bachmann if she’s still in the race by then.
Unless something drastic happens, I don’t see Huntsman winning anywhere, only doing just good enough to spoil things for Romney. Interestingly, there’s a fair bit of speculation out there that that’s the real reason he’s running.