I hadn’t finished eating dinner when an AP alert on my phone told me Mitt Romney had won the New Hampshire primary.
So since then, it’s just been a matter of seeing how they line up behind him.
With 66 percent reporting, Romney has 38 percent, Ron Paul 23 percent, and John Huntsman 17 percent. Which means Huntsman is effectively in second place, since Ron Paul isn’t going to be the nominee. Which was probably about where he needed to be to continue.
Gingrich and Santorum at tied at less than 10 percent. And Rick Perry? Less than 1 percent. He has an explanation for that: “I skipped New Hampshire and aimed my campaign right at conservative South Carolina, where we’ve been campaigning hard and receiving an enthusiastic welcome.”
He and others will be much in evidence henceforth in these parts. Busy day tomorrow. I’m going to try to drop by as many of the following as possible:
- 1:10 p.m. — Rick Perry at Doc’s Barbecue
- 3 p.m. — Jon Huntsman at the Moore School at USC
- 6:10 p.m. — Mitt Romney at The Hall at Senate’s End
- 7 p.m. — Rick Santorum at the Springdale House in Lexington County
Looks like Gingrich doesn’t make it to town until Thursday — when I will be out of town (more about that later).
Here we go again, y’all…
Related Posts
Taking a personal day from ADCO?
Paul won young voters in Iowa and NH by a wide margin. Guess it’s tough to admit you’re getting old. He got more votes than Santorum, Gingrich, and Perry combined. Exit polls showed him with 40% of the voters saying he had the most respected moral character (20 points ahead of Romney).
You can keep pretending that the message of personal freedom, obeying the Constitution, and national defense instead of nation building is some type of fringe opinion… A quarter of the voters in two states is way beyond fringe.
Paul will be in it all the way to November. I hope he runs third party and gets to debate Obama amd Romney.
Nope. Big morning.
And mixed in among that afternoon stuff, I have a board meeting for Community Relations Council over at the Chamber.
I’m really not looking forward to tomorrow.
Better hit the sack.
I’m not pretending anything. But if you’re hoping he runs third party, that means you’re rooting for Obama to win the election. Which he probably will anyway, but that would clinch it.
I knew Paulistas would bristle if I pointed out that Huntsman came in second among the people with a remote chance of being the nominee. It’s just the truth. The Paul vote is a fixed object, sort of like a boulder that a river flows around. He is constant, and firm — a most respectable boulder. But he’s got the vote he’s going to get.
I’ve been saying from the beginning that Huntsman had a chance to do well here. I still think he can if he picks up enough of the Serious Business Republican vote + the moderate independents. Haley’s endorsement might actually hurt Romney with those 2 groups.
What gives anyone the idea that Paul is in favor of a strong national defense?
And where did Huntsman finish in Iowa? And do you want to place a wager on whether Paul beats him in SC? I could use a free lunch.
I like Huntsman, he seems to be actually reasonable, which is rare for a major party political candidate. I hope he has a good showing in SC.
I still think that none of them have a snowball’s chance of beating Barry O’bama in the general election.
A Ron Paul supporter ran a vile ad trying to portray Huntsman an unAmerican because of his two adopted daughters from India and China. Paul’s NH spokesman condemned the ad, but I’d like to hear that same condemnation from the candidate himself.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/huntsman-objects-to-paul-ad-featuring-adopted-daughters/2012/01/06/gIQATO7xeP_story.html?fb_ref=NetworkNews
“But if you’re hoping he runs third party, that means you’re rooting for Obama to win the election.”
I disagree with this characterization of support of a third party candidate. Beyond an effect on the electoral outcome, a third party candidacy could force the two major party candidates to deal with an issue (or a particular perspective on an issue) which they would have otherwise ignored. Maybe that is what Doug is rooting for.
David, been there done that with Ralph Nader in 2000. Worst vote I ever made.
Why didn’t Rick Perry address Columbia Rotary on Monday? Inquiring minds want to know.
I don’t know. Rusty DePass says that he and J.T. Gandolfo worked hard last week trying to get one of the candidates — and they were trying with several, including Rusty’s man Santorum — and couldn’t get any of them here at that time.
I will vote for Paul in a three way race because I believe in his message. There isn’t that much difference between Obama and Romney – maybe in what they say but not in what they do. It will be more of the same big government, deficit spending, war on “terror” nonsense.
And, Burl, look up the word “defense” in the dictionary. You defend against attacks, not take the attacks to people you don’t like first.
You’re right about one thing, Doug — Romney is the least likely to lead to any significant departure from ongoing policy. Just as Obama largely continued the policies of the Bush administration.
Huntsman, I believe, would advocate for some real change — although on National Security (note that I seldom say “defense,” because since about 1941 our nation’s security has depended greatly upon forward projection of power), I think he’d probably go with something like what Obama unveiled the other day, concentrating on the Pacific Rim.
I point that out because Huntsman is often described as the less-popular Romney. But I think — particularly after listening to him speak an hour ago — he’d be much more of a reformer.
Brad! Yikes; you shocked me on that one.
Have you forgotten the John Paul Jones and the USS Ranger, the Barbary Pirates campaign, CSS Alabama and CSS Shenandoah, Admiral Dewey at Manila, Teddy Roosevelt’s Great White Fleet and even Pearl Harbor itself?
We learned from the very beginning of our history that power projection is a necessity of defence when a country is invested in trade and free enterprise. This world-wide viewpoint didn’t just start with the attack on Pearl Harbor.
One can argue all day about the “necessity” of invading Iraq and Afganistan from our position of blissful North American isolation – forgetting that darn illegal immigration from Mexico and points south thing for a minute – but it would be beyond foolhardy for any candidate to posit that the United States does not have a defensive interest in insuring that the Straight of Hormuz, the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea and the Red Sea (just to name a few) remain open to shipping and commerce. We have made it a priority since 1776 to project power in defense of our country; although at times, and at great later cost, people have forgotten the importance of keeping the sea, the air and space open for our own and other countries’ use.
In his splendid isolationism, Paul betrays a glaring shortcoming. Though he does have many others that will likely receive much more focus here as the fever pitch grows.
Plenty of intelligent people don’t vote in presidential elections in
SC.There’s this thing called ,The Electoral College !
edit-
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=18725492
Perry was actually announced–and then he wasn’t coming to town–but then he did. Very odd behavior for someone seeking votes. Maybe Rotary is more Romney in his eyes (little does he know)…
Just as Obama largely continued the policies of the Bush administration.
-Brad
There’s some truth to that, we do still have the Patriot Act, Gitmo and a host of other unsavory problems created by Bush. But there are some important changes also. We at last have some sort of healthcare initiative, however imperfect, that addresses the huge need of providing healthcare for millions of uninsured. The last troops have finally come home from Iraq. That was a date set by the Bush administration but would have likely been pushed back under a President McCain. Indeed a president can’t single handidly change the course of national policy but he can certainly change the tone of the debate. At least now we don’t have to worry about elimination medicare or social security. At least I hope so.
@bud
“We at last have some sort of healthcare initiative,”
For now. If the Supreme Court overturns Obamacare this year, it will be a major blow to Obama in November. Plus, most of the ugly stuff in Obamacare was structured to go in effect after the elections. Taxes on medical devices (one company has already said it will have to cut jobs because of it), changes to payments to doctors, etc. Obamacare could have been transformational for this country if it stuck to the basics. Instead, we got a few good things mixed in with a whole lot of typical Washington lobbyist influenced givebacks.
The person who gets my vote will be the one that indulges the least in political pandering and distortion of the truth in order to gain support. I trust a person who tends to face the truth and and then tries to address problems in the light of it.
As political science professor Amy Black says, “Those who are quick to distort and skirt the edge of the truth publicly are even less likely to make wise choices when no one appears to be looking.”
Which counts out most Republican contenders as far as I have seen.
Doug, I actually agree with you. There is too much junk in the Obamacare bill. Where we probably disagree is that I think the good stuff (pre-existing conditions clause, allowing children to stay on parents plan, etc.) outways the junk.
Never mind Obama. What would really be bad is if the court said we can’t have a mandate.
Because without a mandate, without everybody in the system, we can’t have healthcare reform. Ever. Unless the court reverses itself.
… and Romney knows that.
So a mandate includes Christian Scientists? Let’s see them work around the religious freedom aspect.
Christian Scientists can get parity coverage for Christian Science practitioners, same as pagan practitioners and alt. medicine–I think there’s so requirement that efficacy be shown, but if it works, it’s covered.