Some thoughts on the New Hampshire Primary
Ron bin Paul got 23% and finished (a distant) second in New Hampshire. He finished third and got 21% in Iowa. Could it really be that there are actually more extremist goofs on the voting rolls in the Granite State than in Iowa?
No, Emir Paul. You are most assuredly not "nipping at Mitt Romney's heels." He beat you by 17 points. Deal with it.
The New York Times projections (based on the average of the polls, and adjusted to compensate in weaknesses in the sampling and methods of each) show Romney ahead 7.6% in South Carolina (supposedly his toughest state) and 12.1% in Florida. Paul looks to finish a distant fourth in both South Carolina and in Florida. In the later, he is in single digits; in the former, he barely escapes them. The race- such as it is- may well be over by Ground Hog Day. Gingrich looked like a runaway winner in both states before Iowa- which, as we all know, has no effect on the subsequent direction of the race.
However sad it may make more delusional Republicans, PBS reported last night that its exit polls confirmed what seems to be the general consensus: that Romney was the candidate of all factions of the party, including conservatives. And the number one reason why people voted for him: he is regarded pretty much across the board as the most electable of the candidates.
Jon Huntsman, sad to say, is a dead man walking. The best-qualified candidate for president in twenty years staked everything on New Hampshire, and while he came away with a respectable third (17%), there is no place ahead where he figures to do any better. Rick Perry, of course, skipped New Hampshire. My guess is that he will finally get around to recognizing that he's toast after he bombs in South Carolina. When Newt figures out that he's the Ghost of Primary Nights Past is anybody's guess, but he needs to swallow that bitterness and stop handing President Obama ammunition for the fall campaign. It's not all about you, Mr. Speaker.
It should be said, though, that Newt showed some class in defending Romney after the latter's "I like firing people" gaffe. In context, Romney was saying that people should be able to "fire" health insurance companies that don't provide the services they need, and that having a lot of options among them is a good thing.
Obviously a foot-in-mouth moment that begged to be taken out of context, and most of Romney's opponents pounced. But Gingrich showed some class: "The language was a little bit clumsy and open to misinterpretation and that might raise some questions about whether or not he's the right person to debate Barack Obama, which I think is an essential characteristic for this fall, but nonetheless, I thought it was unfair to suggest that he actually liked firing people."
Comments
Electability makes an OK #4 or #5 reason to vote for someone in the primary. But for it to be the #1 reason just doesn't make sense. Hillary Clinton is probably more electable than Willard Romney, so if your #1 reason for voting for someone is electability, they should obviously nominate Hillary Clinton.
Identifying as a Republican is one thing, but not caring who the nominee is as long as the red team wins is irrational.
Obviously a foot-in-mouth moment that begged to be taken out of context, and most of Romney's opponents pounced. But Gingrich showed some class:
What about Ron Paul? He jumped in to criticize Romney's critics on that matter. He might be the reason Gingrich backtracked on it.
I agree absolutely. That's why I would even vote for Obama over Ron Paul.
As to the rest, your logic is bad. Again. If you find a group of candidates more or less equally acceptable otherwise, then electability would be a very prudent ground for preferring one over the rest. In this case, it demonstrates conclusively: 1) that New Hampshire Republicans overwhelmingly consider Romney at least acceptable (contrary to some), and 2) that they aren't such fools as to vote for somebody with no chance of getting elected.
Politically effective people go for the best deal they can get. Politically ineffective people hold out for perfection- and typically get nothing.
It would be all about beating Paul. Not that three would be any doubt that he would be beaten. probably on the scale of Barry Goldwater in 1964. Or worse.