Showdown in South Carolina
Well, the New Hampshire primary is now behind us and the big upshot is a rare performance from the Granite State: it did virtually nothing to change the race.
There were some minor differences. Mitt Romney's win was much larger than in Iowa and Jon Huntsman substituted for Rick Santorum as the not-Romney best attuned to the state's political contours. On a more consistent note, Ron Paul's base proved once again to be simultaneously durable and incapable of winning the nomination. But the race for the White House the day after New Hampshire looks remarkably similar to the way it did the day before.
Here's the implication: there's a significant chance this race will functionally be over in a week and a half, when South Carolina votes on Saturday, January 21. The Palmetto State's current polling average, according to RealClearPolitics, gives Romney an edge of more than 10 points. If he wins by those double-digit margins, this thing is in the bag.
Looking at the individual polls, however, tells us what to watch. The most recent Rasmussen Poll has Santorum trailing Romney by only three points. PPP's latest, by contrast, has Gingrich as the closest competitor, down by seven. One major caveat, however: these polls are from last week, so they represent the numbers two and a half weeks prior to primary day. Plenty can change in that time.
Here's the scenario likely to result: If Romney wins by a commanding margin, he becomes virtually unstoppable. If either Santorum or Gingrich manage to come in a very close second (or, in a much more far-fetched scenario, narrowly win) -- a development that would require one of them decisively breaking away from the other -- then we're down to a two-man race, which would most likely serve no higher purpose than delaying the inevitable.
Ron Paul will stay in regardless, racking up votes more for the purpose of representing a movement than a presidential candidacy. Rick Perry will return to Austin after a poor showing (no current polls in South Carolina show him higher than 5 percent). Jon Huntsman may stay in through Florida, as he has a wide array of ties to the Sunshine State that he likely hopes could fuel an unexpected surge.
Thus, the big question is Santorum and Gingrich. If they stay at relative parity, Romney exploits the divide and walks to the nomination. If one rises substantially above the other, he becomes the anointed alternative to Romney ... and becomes tasked with standing in front of the locomotive.
- Comment (26)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Showdown in South Carolina
If he does or says something stupid, Romney can defeat himself, but I don't see anybody keeping up with him. He'll probably lose a few states, but just a few. People say it's way too soon, but this contest has already been going on for months in the media. And for Romney, it's been going on for years. I hope I'm wrong, because what I see ahead is all very boring.
Feb '11
Re: Showdown in South Carolina
"Mitt Romney's win was much larger than in Iowa and Jon Huntsman substituted for Rick Santorum as the not-Romney best attuned to the state's political contours."
Did I miss something or did Ron Paul come in second, i.e., the not-Romney? Or is it that you mean a neither-Romney-nor-Paul?
Aug '11
Re: Showdown in South Carolina
As Michele Bachmann did, Perry ought to have read the tea leaves after Iowa and ended his campaign. A difficult thing to do for a man who prides himself on never losing an election and who still - at the time - had a considerable amount of cash in his war chest, but he should have bowed out nonetheless. After an undramatic third place finish in NH, Huntsman needs to go. I'm content for Ron Paul to continue his "mavericky" campaign, only because every political party should have a thorn in its side to keep it honest. I agree that Santorum/Gingrich is the big question. I support Santorum, who is one of the few candidates evincing a coherent, cohesive philosophy. When he speaks about his positions on the issues, you know he believes in them and has thought them through, rather than merely adopting them as convenient or expected, which is everyone's fear about Romney. Gingrich and Santorum will continue to split the not-Romney vote until one or the other's money runs out, which I think will depend heavily on the outcome of South Carolina.
Re: Showdown in South Carolina
Essentially I mean the latter. The difference between Paul and the other not-Romneys is that the others have a chance of picking up votes as their rivals drop out. Paul has consistently significant support, but virtually no capacity to add to it. Thus, the way the rest of the field shakes out isn't going to change his viability as a nominee.
Hang On:
Did I miss something or did Ron Paul come in second, i.e., the not-Romney? Or is it that you mean a neither-Romney-nor-Paul? · Jan 11 at 11:12am
Aug '10
Re: Showdown in South Carolina
There are times when I hate logical, rational arguments. As a fan of various not-Romneys, this is one of those times.
Aug '10
Re: Showdown in South Carolina
I think any size win for Romney in SC - even 1% - will mean this race is over. He'll go on to win Florida and all the February contests are very favorable to him. Come March Mitt'll have too much momentum for anyone to stop him. He may even lose a southern state or two but it won't matter in the end.
SC is the last stand for the not-Romneys but the problem is that there are 3 of them and none of them will drop out.
Romney raised $24 million in Q4. Game over.
Edited on Jan 11 at 12:05pmRe: Showdown in South Carolina
Don't shoot the messenger, Blue. Especially when the message makes him want to shoot himself.
Dec '10
Re: Showdown in South Carolina
Here is a good analysis from one of Delingpole's fellow Telegraph bloggers on how South Carolina will shape the race (I've edited out the explanation of each of his points except the last):
Mitt Romney looks formidable, but he could still stumble in South Carolina
Oct '11
Re: Showdown in South Carolina
Troy Senik, Ed.: Essentially I mean the latter. The difference between Paul and the other not-Romneys is that the others have a chance of picking up votes as their rivals drop out. Paul has consistently significant support, but virtually no capacity to add to it. Thus, the way the rest of the field shakes out isn't going to change his viability as a nominee.
Hang On:
Did I miss something or did Ron Paul come in second, i.e., the not-Romney? Or is it that you mean a neither-Romney-nor-Paul? · Jan 11 at 11:12am
Jan 11 at 11:17am
I have a question : How are the other candidates serious not-Romneys if some of them are not on the ballot in some states ?
I read somewhere that Huntsman and Gingrich are on this list.
Jun '10
Re: Showdown in South Carolina
Seems like a big difference between Santorum as the non-Romney is Iowa (dead heat), and Huntsman as the non-Romney in NH (where Romney more than doubled his votes).
Huntsman has neither the personality or the organization to make a significant enough dent in SC or FL to become meaningful in the race.
I think we're to the point where it's either Romney or Santorum.
May '10
Re: Showdown in South Carolina
Two and a half weeks are a long time in SC, and it can get nasty down here. So far, though, Romney has shown a willingness to throw sharp elbows if he needs to. Gingrich also seems to have no problem tossing grenades, except that they always seem to roll back downhill and explode at his feet. I can see Santorum being eaten alive down here.
Troy, any idea which SC consultants Romney and the others have hired?
Jul '11
Re: Showdown in South Carolina
Troy Senik, Ed.: Paul has consistently significant support, but virtually no capacity to add to it.
Hang On:
Did I miss something or did Ron Paul come in second, i.e., the not-Romney? Or is it that you mean a neither-Romney-nor-Paul? · Jan 11 at 11:12am
Jan 11 at 11:17am
I'm not sure that the data bears this out. Comparing the primary results thus far with those from 2008 show that Ron Paul support has grown significantly, especially in NH. I agree that he has no real shot at the presidency, but I think there is a real tendency to ignore the surge in Ron Paulism this cycle.
-E
Jun '11
Re: Showdown in South Carolina
Matthew- Warren Tompkins, veteran of Reagan, Dole, & Bush 41 & 43 campaigns in SC got on board the Romney campaign in December. Also, Luke Byars, DeMint's state campaign director came aboard. Up until the end of December Mitt had a small presence. First Tuesday Strategies is the consulting firm that Thompson and Byars operate. They worked for Romney four years ago and are Jim DeMint's campaign team.
Matthew Gilley: Two and a half weeks are a long time in SC, and it can get nasty down here. So far, though, Romney has shown a willingness to throw sharp elbows if he needs to. Gingrich also seems to have no problem tossing grenades, except that they always seem to roll back downhill and explode at his feet. I can see Santorum being eaten alive down here.
Troy, any idea which SC consultants Romney and the others have hired? · Jan 11 at 12:30pm
Jun '11
Re: Showdown in South Carolina
Also, Rick Perry has had Katon Dawson, former SC Party Chair running things for him in the state since he got in the race. If Gingrich, Santorum, Huntsman, or Paul have any significant SC-based consultants I haven't heard.
Sep '10
Re: Showdown in South Carolina
Gingrich also seems to have no problem tossing grenades, except that they always seem to roll back downhill and explode at his feet.
He does have a bit of a Wile E Coyote, Genius vibe going right now doesn't he?
Aug '10
Re: Showdown in South Carolina
Gingrich has this key SC consultant on board;
Jun '11
Re: Showdown in South Carolina
I said there was nothing that could get me to vote for Gingrich. But then, Frozen Chosen played trump. If Cocky is on the team, I'm in.
Frozen Chosen: Gingrich has this key SC consultant on board; · Jan 11 at 2:59pm
Aug '10
Re: Showdown in South Carolina
Terry: I said there was nothing that could get me to vote for Gingrich. But then, Frozen Chosen played trump. If Cocky is on the team, I'm in.
Jan 11 at 3:51pm
With a name like Cocky, who else would he support but Newt.
May '10
Re: Showdown in South Carolina
One scenario not considered by Troy is Newt (and maybe Perry too) dropping out and endorsing Santorum.
It's not likely but it is plausible -- especially since Newt's motivations appear to be more "stop Mitt" than "win".
Dec '10
Re: Showdown in South Carolina
Scott Reusser: One scenario not considered by Troy is Newt (and maybe Perry too) dropping out and endorsing Santorum.
It's not likely but it is plausible -- especially since Newt's motivations appear to be more "stop Mitt" than "win". · Jan 11 at 4:08pm
This is likelier to happen immediately after the South Carolina primary than before it. I am not sure how Perry and Huntsman justify staying in after SC (though I am not sure Huntsman would throw his inconsiderable support to Santorum). Newt may decide, if he does badly in SC, that Santorum indeed presents the best hope of blocking Romney's march to the nomination.